Biegun's last tour in Seoul characterized by self serving posture; US media's flaky leaflets campaign

In a December 10 article Yonhap News Agency described a talk given, in Seoul, by Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun who played a significant role as the US envoy for negotiations with North Korea. In the talk Biegun made self serving remarks blaming North Korea for the failure of nuclear talks with the US to go forward:

Reflecting on the deadlocked negotiation process, he expressed regrets over North Korean counterparts missing opportunities just in "search for obstacles."

"Regrettably, much opportunity has been squandered by our North Korean counterparts over the past two years, who too often have devoted themselves to the search for obstacles to negotiations instead of seizing opportunities for engagement," he said.*

*Biegun says diplomacy 'best' and 'only' course to resolving N.K. challenges, Yonhap News, Dec. 10; https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20201210007900325

Let's look at how Reuters characterized the state of negotiations between the US and North Korea on Dec. 4, 2020:

Talks over reducing international sanctions on North Korea in return for concessions from Pyongyang broke down in the wake of a summit between Trump and Kim in Vietnam in February 2019, which ended with no deal.

Biegun’s visit comes as incoming U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to reset relations with Seoul, which have been strained by Trump’s demand that South Korea pay billions of dollars more for maintaining the U.S. troop presence on the peninsula.

Relations between the allies were also complicated by South Korean frustrations with U.S. objections to some of its efforts to engage with North Korea.*

*U.S. envoy to visit South Korea next week: sources, Reuters staff, Dec. 4, 2020: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-northkorea-biegun/u-s-envoy-to-visit-south-korea-next-week-sources-idUSKBN28E1Y7


Note the use of the passive voice, talks "which ended with no deal," rather than the US walked out of the Hanoi Summit in a stunt designed for world wide media play. The US showed up at Hanoi to present a list of expanded demands not previously discussed, basically throwing Beigun's hints at a flexible negotiating posture out the window. The US posture presented a transparent bait and switch manuever designed to bring Kim Jong Un to the table for another momentous photo op for Trump with no substance. The US walk out embarrassed and humiliated the North Korean leader and gave the leadership group in North Korea a lesson in US duplicity it will likely never forget. The following June 2019 summit at Panmunjom was similar media stunt less embarrassing for Kim, but similarly conducted on the US side as a media event for Trump with no substance. Clearly Beigun bears some responsibility for this.

Beigun's role as the head of the US negotiating working group which ostensibly was to lay the groundwork for negotiations with North Korea, essentially devolved to blocking or otherwise frustrating South Korean initiatives with North Korea. The South Koreans were warned "not to get too far out in front," and "to get on the same page," as the US. US envoys said there can be "no daylight" between US and South Korean approaches. South Korean initiatives to open the liaison office with North Korea, and their military agreements to lower tensions along the DMZ, Joint Security Area, and Northern Limit Lines were criticized. North-South plans to survey, restore, and use the east coast and west coast railways were effectively blocked by US sanctions threats. Obviously, South Korea wanted to reopen the joint production facility at Kaesong, and the Geumgansan resort in North Korea. At one point a South Korean envoy was told by Washington, "don't bother coming to Washington" if you are going to bring up these plans.

The current wave of US "human rights" manufactured propaganda aimed against North Korea, and indirectly at South Korean diplomatic initiatives that present the prospect of success in relations with North Korea, involves US dismay that the North Korean defectors it sponsors in South Korea can no longer send balloons, drones, or other materials over the DMZ to North Korea. According to US propaganda, the prohibition on these dangerous activities impairs the "free speech" of South Koreans in general. This is absurd. No one has the right to go to the JSA and yell or otherwise transmit their personal political messages to North Korea. One could imagine the response of guards at the JSA to such activities. Is that restriction a "free speech" violation? Obviously not. Military and civilian activities along the DMZ and NLL are subject to severe restrictions. All flights within 20 km of the DMZ are restricted, and in the Eastern region of the DMZ the restrictions are extended to 40 km.

The notion that private individuals have a right to send airborne objects over the DMZ is absurd and militarily provocative. One cannot use their own loudspeakers along the DMZ either. Neither can the South Korean government according to the agreements it has made with the North. These are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions rather than an encroachment on free speech. These restrictions were negotiated by the freely elected government of South Korea and the criminal offenses related to these acts were legislated by the National Assembly. These laws serve the end of reducing the tensions along the DMZ and reducing the chance of incidents that may result in deadly escalations. US criticism in the Congress, executive branch, VOA and other venues represents blatant US interference in South Korean sovereignty.

The notion that the US knows better how to reach to North Korean people, or even that it cares about the North Korean people is simply not credible. In any case, no one is stopping the US from broadcasting its incessant propaganda to North Korea via VOA Korea or RFA. Worse, the US position on this issue, presumes that it and its paid North Korean defector NGOs know better how to negotiate with North Korea than the freely elected government of South Korea. Direct contact with South Korea and South Koreans, through diplomatic channels, limited economic projects, tourism, cultural exchanges, sports events, humanitarian aid, and public health cooperation, represent the best way to open North Korea to initiatives to encourage peace, prosperity, human rights and a path to denuclearization in the North. This is obviously the preferable course rather than the coercive US maximum pressure approach which punishes the North Korean people, encourages hostility, and has as its ultimate object, regime change. One thing the Hanoi summit clearly demonstrated is that the US has no genuine interest in negotiation but essentially is stalling for time while praying the North Korean communist regime will collapse from the "maximum pressure" being applied.

The blog has reviewed in several instances the "step by step approach" to negotiations favored by four of the original six parties, North Korea, South Korea, Russia and China. Reciprocity in step by step negotiations builds mutual trust in contrast to the all or nothing, "one bundle" or so called "Libyan approach" favored by the US and Japan. The outcome of the Libyan approach is demonstrably predictable. Mr. Biegun's feigned US flexibility portrayed in his public statements proved to be little more than window dressing for a hypocritical US regime change policy of maximum pressure. Blaming North Korea is the go to position for failed US negotiators.

Addendum 12.22

Ironically 38North.org published an article by Olli Heinonen Dec. 18, disputing the contention that there is a Uranium enrichment facility at Kangson. The article suggests the facility could be for manufacturing centrifuge components but is not an enrichment facility. Oddly, the article states in an aside that there must be such a "third facility" somewhere, but doesn't provide a basis for this assumption.*

New Evidence Suggests Kangson Is Not a Uranium Enrichment Plant, OLLI HEINONEN, Dec. 18; https://www.38north.org/2020/12/kangson201217/

I'm taking note of the article because according to Thae Yong-ho a well known North Korean defector in South Korea, and now a conservative National Assembly representative, the existence vel non of the so called Kangson secret enrichment facility was a dealbreaker at Hanoi. (See our discussion: Thae Yong Ho Says Secret Uranium Enrichment Facility Dealbreaker in Hanoi, March 14, 2019). In Beigun's January 31, 2019, presentation at Stanford, during the question and answer period, Beigun noted the pitfalls of confusing intelligence assessments and priorities with diplomatic policy goals. Noting the potential problem beforehand seemingly had no impact on the outcome of the summit. Allegedly, the US side's eagerness to test a dubious intelligence theory nevertheless resulted in the Hanoi Summit's theatrical denouement.

Art of Deception - conflicting US objectives in North and South Korea

A new article at Donga.com (Dong A Ilbo) implicitly confirms Donga Media original reports from April 23 onward that US reconnaissance aircraft identified Kim Jong-un moving about without assistance at his retreat near Wonsan, North Korea between April 14 and 20.

Both countries agree that the U.S.’s reconnaissance resources have played a role in identifying Kim Jong Un’s movements since he went under the radar after a Political Bureau meeting on April 11. ...

...A total of four reconnaissance planes were deployed last Friday when Kim appeared at the fertilizer plant. Some of the findings from such tight monitoring were shared with the South Korean government, which is why the South Korean government could confidently say that there was no unusual development in the North in addition to its internal intelligence. “The majority of the U.S.’s reconnaissance resources dedicated to Northeast Asia were deployed to the Korean Peninsula to identify Kim Jong Un’s movements,” said a diplomatic source.

*

*U.S. reconnaissance resources could increase pressure on S. Korea’s defense burden, by Gi-Jae Han and Kyu-Jin Shin; May. 06, 2020 07:42, Updated May. 06, 2020 07:42; http://www.donga.com/en/home/article/all/20200506/2055581/1/U-S-reconnaissance-resources-could-increase-pressure-on-S-Korea-s-defense-burden

According to the new Donga report, the US is now arguing that the intense reconnaissance effort is a basis for increased payments from South Korea for its share of US military costs in South Korea. This is main thrust of the new DongA article. Leaving the stalled SMA US- ROK negotiations aside for the moment, the key revelation is that US reconnaissance assets showed that Kim was alive and well. All this while the usual suspect assets, the defector groups, the think tanks, their web sites and flacks in the pliable media, asserted in all platforms available to them in South Korea, the US and Japan, as well the world generally, that Kim was critically ill after a heart procedure, in a coma, dying, or already dead. Not a word of this based upon a reliable source.

Due to the effectiveness of US reconnaissance the "Kim is dead" narrative was known to be false inside the US and South Korean governments, virtually the entire time, while mainstream media in the US pushed the story that Kim was a goner as hard as they could. This was a psychological warfare operation supplementing the usual regime change, maximum pressure campaign ongoing against North Korea. It's purpose was to foment instability in North Korea in the form of a potential succession crisis. That this duplicitous strategy should now be used to pressure South Korea to fork up a larger share of US military costs in South Korea is very unlikely to be successful.

Unfortunately for them, two well known North Korean defectors recently elected to the South Korean National Assembly on April 15, have been pilloried in South Korean political circles and press for their dubious contribution to the misinformation campaign about Kim's incapacity and demise, pressed primarily by the US and Japan. (The Japanese press went so far as to publish photo-shopped imagery and video of Kim Jong-un's face pasted onto his father's glass casket in the Palace of the Sun.) The South Korean perception of the credibility of Thae Yong-ho and Ji Song-ho have been seriously damaged by the episode. The question of their loyalty to South Korea is openly raised by politicians asking whether or not they are "spies." Ji had gone so far as to say "I'm 99 percent certain Kim Jong-un is dead," which essentially means he's either dumb or dishonest. Thae made a public apology to the people of South Korea in an attempt to redeem his impaired reputation.*

*North Korea defectors criticised over speculation Kim was ill or dead, Hyonhee Shin, Sangmi Cha Reuters May 4, 2020;
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-kim-defectors/north-korea-defectors-criticised-over-speculation-kim-was-ill-or-dead-idUSKBN22G0FS

One seriously has to question why South Korea would consider rewarding the US for efforts that did not actually lead to increased security on the peninsula but were neutralized simultaneously by a US effort that was, in effect, an agit-prop operation, designed to cause instability in it's nuclear armed neighbor to the north. At one and the same time it attempted unsuccessfully to undermine the credibility of the South Korean government. The latter now has a historic new mandate from the April 15 general election. Ambassador Harris' appearance in a May 1 video, demonstrating his interest in cooking skills during the conundrum, added a ridiculous patina to another serious US public relations failure in South Korea. Or was the effort to destabilize the North with disinformation plausibly deniable?

Joe Biden wouldn't meet Kim Jong Un without preconditions.

This is the story on the VOA website reported from Seoul:

Biden: No Meeting With Kim Jong Un Absent Preconditions
By William Gallo
January 15, 2020 04:16 AM

SEOUL - Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden says he would not meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un without preconditions. It is the latest evidence Biden would overturn parts of U.S. President Donald Trump’s outreach to Pyongyang.

"Not now, I wouldn’t meet without any preconditions," Biden said Tuesday during a Democratic debate in the midwestern state of Iowa. "Look, we gave him everything he’s looking for. The president showed up, met with him, gave him legitimacy, weakened the sanctions we have against him."

https://www.voanews.com/usa/biden-no-meeting-kim-jong-un-absent-preconditions

Gallo is the VOA editor in Seoul. He continues to surprise me, or I wouldn't bother posting a VOA article. I pretty much watch VOA Korea podcasts every day which are standard anti North Korean propaganda one would expect. The daily podcasts are in Korean, of course, because that's the target audience. VOA's Washington Talk program, which is posted on youtube on Saturdays, tends to be more in depth, and the speakers are US "experts," on Korean affairs, or at least experienced Korea hands. Their discussion in English is translated into Korean subtitles. I've been watching these programs and others regularly for three years. Occasionally, they get a dissenting view on there, but usually there is a consensus that everything is either the fault of Chairman Kim, or a mistake by President Moon Jae-in. The idea that Moon Jae-in, the president of South Korea would know more about Korean affairs than an American is never considered. Apologia for Trump's approach are sometimes offered when he is so far off base something has to be said, but the usual practice concerning US missteps, miscalculations and blunders is to omit them or deny their existence.

To his credit, Mr. Gallo's written material here concerning Mr. Biden's view on North Korean negotiations exposes the former Vice President's incompetence. The view that Chairman Kim has been granted "legitimacy" by Trump's approach, summits, letters, etc., is amateur diplomatic claptrap, put out by persons who have nothing more substantial to say concerning the deadlocked negotiations. The notion that Trump has weakened sanctions is absurdly incorrect. Tim Shorrock, an expert commentator and journalist concerning Korean affairs, has written how sad it is, that Democrats have this proclivity to attack Trump's haphazard approach from the right. Trump's impulsive approach includes threats of war, inappropriate gushing about his great personal relationship with Kim Jong-un, and infinite faith in his top down approach. Increased calls for sanctions and demands for North Korean capitulation, alternate with facile and vague promises of a "bright future", and reassurances that the US is "not a threat." Trump evidently feels this inconsistent and hostile approach is concealed by his personal charm and deft negotiating skills. One need only observe the current Iran debacle he and his cabinet have engineered since the withdrawal from the JCPOA. All this however does not absolve Mr. Biden's ignorant and factually incorrect statement.

Gallo's subtlety is that he let's Mr. Biden's statement speak for itself. The statement reveals Mr. Biden has no insight into the Northeast Asian political dilemma, and at the same time has a factually mistaken comprehension of the sanctions regime in effect against North Korea. One can see for themselves if they are familiar with the facts and have followed the negotiations, that Mr. Biden is entirely lacking in the judgement and insight that he purportedly claims to have as a result of his "extensive" foreign policy experience. So the presumptive emperor in waiting as it were, has no clothes, and Mr. Gallo, is a credit to VOA for not attempting to conceal the embarrassing truth.

The Art of Denuclearization

(Source- BK News Briefing 12.12.19 ) Clearly South Korea is one of the parties suffering greatest harm from the mutual distrust between the US and North Korea.

(Source- BK News Briefing 12.12.19 ) Strange, a clever way to protect the mutual promises of the US and North Korea from ever being broken never emerged.

The US special envoy to North Korea for the negotiations, Stephen Biegun, arrived in Beijing today after visiting Seoul and Tokyo, prompting a lot of hopeful speculation in the South Korean media as to whether Choe Son-hui, the North Korean vice Minister of Foreign Affairs or some other North Korean negotiator might show up. Biegun declined to give any statements when he arrived at the airport.

This is a related development:

State Department North Korea envoy confirmed as deputy secretary of state
By Jennifer Hansler, CNN

Updated 5:56 PM ET, Thu December 19, 2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/politics/steve-biegun-deputy-secretary-of-state-confirmation/index.html

After the abortive attempt to resume working level negotiations between Biegun and Kim Myong Gil, at Stockholm, last October, Biegun complained that Kim the North Korean working level envoy, wasn't senior enough and didn't really have authority to negotiate. Envoy Kim said that the US side brought nothing new to the table and broke off those talks reciprocating the US side's earlier behavior at the Hanoi summit. Biegun had requested to meet with Choi Son Hui at one point but she had said that Biegun himself was a lower level official. So in Stockholm, Kim Myong Gil was what he got. Kim Hyuk Chol, the prior North Korean envoy, disappeared after the Hanoi debacle. Biegun's appointment to Deputy Secretary seems the latest move in the "you're not senior enough" game.

Maximum Pressure leading to Maximum Failure?

(Source- JTBC News, 11.9) Kim Yong Chol, "We are a people with nothing more to lose." Chyron: Warning- "We can go back to the relationship that existed before the US-North Korean dialogue."

The obstacle to progress in denuclearization negotiations with North Korea is still the fundamental confrontation over the step by step method versus the all or nothing, no concessions, no trust building approach favored by US officials, elected or otherwise. Most Korea "experts" inside the beltway echo chamber just refuse to acknowledge this fundamental shortcoming in the US diplomatic approach which is first a process issue, and then secondarily a matter of great substantial importance. Either that, or they just want regime change in North Korea and can't imagine bargaining with the communist dictatorship under any circumstances other than complete capitulation by the North, often referred to as the Libyan approach.

"Sanctions have reached a point of diminishing returns. It is unlikely, therefore, that more “maximum pressure,” without a diplomatic strategy that offers Pyongyang positive inducements to negotiate steps toward denuclearization, will deliver results." Richard Nephew

Furious Futility: Maximum Pressure in 2020
BY: RICHARD NEPHEW
NOVEMBER 15, 2019
https://www.38north.org/2019/11/rnephew111519/

Town said North Korea has previously indicated a willingness to give up parts of its nuclear program as a first-phase deal, but not to discuss complete denuclearization up front.

“The North Koreans have always preferred a step by step approach rather than negotiating everything all at once,” Town said. (Jenny Town, editor of 38North.org.)

North Korea's U.N. envoy says denuclearization off negotiating table with United States
Michelle Nichols, David Brunnstrom
Dec. 7, 2019
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa/north-koreas-u-n-envoy-says-denuclearization-off-negotiating-table-with-united-states-idUSKBN1YB0FG


This is also the preference of Russia, China, and South Korea.

SEOUL - A senior adviser to South Korea's president expressed a broad range of frustrations at U.S. policy toward North Korea, saying Washington has not adequately empowered Seoul to play a mediating role with Pyongyang.

In an interview with VOA, Jeong Se-Hyun, who advises South Korean President Moon Jae-in on unification issues, also said the U.S. should offer more incentives to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

"Don't act as if you're offering a carrot while really you are using a stick," said Jeong. "North Korea must first be given carrots. Then if that doesn't work, you use a whip."

As North Korea's Deadline Approaches, South Pushes US for Progress
By William Gallo VOA News
December 01, 2019 10:04 AM
https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/north-koreas-deadline-approaches-south-pushes-us-progress

Achieving security and stability and reducing catastrophic risks on the peninsula will require intensive, expert-level negotiations and comprehensive, step-by-step implementation over many months and years. This broader effort cannot be viewed solely as a bilateral U.S.-North Korean discussion. It also must include China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia and address the security and political concerns of all the parties, including economic and humanitarian matters.

Economic, military, and diplomatic pressure helped bring the North Koreans to the table, but reaching a successful agreement will require carrots as well as sticks. Ernst J. Moniz and Sam Nunn

Lynn Rusten and Richard Johnson with Steve Andreasen and Hayley Anne Severance, Building Security Through Cooperation: Report of the NTI Working G roup on Cooperative Threat Reduction with North Korea (Washington, DC: Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2019), 2, https://media.nti.org/documents/NTI_DPRK2019_RPT_FNL.pdf. (from the forward by Ernst J. Moniz and Sam Nunn)

The necessary operating principle taken from the September 5, 2005 Six Party Talks:

And yet, a year and a half have passed. To move forward, the two countries should agree as a baseline on the fifth clause of the fourth round of the September 2005 Six-Party Talks: “The Six Parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the… consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of ‘commitment for commitment, action for action.” Wada Haruki

Overcoming the San Francisco System: One Japanese Person’s View
Wada Haruki, with an introduction by Alexis Dudden, December 1, 2019
Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 17,| Issue 23, Number 3, Article ID 5331
https://apjjf.org/2019/23/Wada.html

Liar's Poker in Stockholm

When I saw this story on KBS 24 live on youtube, they said that the North Koreans complained that the US hadn’t changed its position. The report said the US representative Stephen Biegun wouldn’t talk to reporters because it wasn’t appropriate to reveal their reaction publicly. Reporters believed that Biegun went to the US embassy rather than stay at the facilities where the talks were being held. The plans of the NK delegation were not clear at the time. The speculation was that it was the old “one bundle” approach of the US v. the step by step approach. The immediate harsh North Korean undiplomatic statements at the scene, after the Stockholm meeting, appear similar to what Trump, Bolton and company did to the North at the summit in Hanoi.

I’m kind of surprised because the Washington Talk on VOA Korea by the two well connected experts they had on Saturday, seemed cautious but upbeat. Most genuine experts seem to know the structure of a deal that could work, I wonder if any were formulated beforehand or if Biegun’s team is just playing liar's poker. The dialogue imagined looks like this, “you have to come off the dime first;” “no you have to make the first offer;” “what did you bring to the table?” “what did you bring to the table?” “You have to define denuclearization and the end stage first;” “no, it’s step by step, with reciprocal trust building measures;” “no that isn’t how it works;” “Okay, bye, we see you haven’t changed a bit, why did you bother?”

Biegun clearly knows better from his presentation at Stanford that was used to sucker the North Koreans at Hanoi. To his credit at his last major policy presentation on North Korea, his views were even less promising and really offered no daylight for the North Koreans in terms of changing the US policy position. To be realistic Kim Jong Un's negotiating team isn't negotiating with Trump, it's negotiating with the entire US government and private establishment with vested interests in the so called San Francisco system that supports US national security in the "Indo- Pacific." These people aren't negotiating, they're in the regime change business. Domestically, Trump is so weak at this point it's unlikely he's capable of offering a negotiating process the North Korean's can accept, let alone make substantive concessions. This is what he found out after Singapore.

Upcoming US - Korea summit and military alliance cost sharing

(Source- JTBC News 9.14)

So the current 2019 cost sharing contribution for US Forces Korea is US $881,178,161.00 at current exhange rates. This figure doesn't include the 9 billion dollars the Republic of Korea recently spent on expansion, modernization, and construction of new facilities at Camp Humphreys, in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, to facilitate the transfer of US Forces Korea and many of its military commands and units to what is now the largest US military base outside the United States. Additionally, not considered are the cost to South Korea of the transfer of some 26 former US military bases back to the host nation including untold billions in cleanup expenses for environmental damages, and personal injury claims based upon pollution and damage to surrounding communities and individuals. The US has been stonewalling cleanup costs in an attempt to foist them on South Korea with zero accountability. On a per capita basis the Republic of Korea spends more on its defense than other US allies. Yet, President Trump, in his coercive, transactional, and undiplomatic style, repeatedly publicly raises this issue, in a hyperbolic and unfair manner, and has in fact, demanded a five hundred percent increase in the South Korea contribution to the alliance's military costs. This is not helpful to the alliance and represents poor public relations with the people of South Korea.

JTBC reports that pending issues for the summit will naturally include military cost sharing, South Korean withdrawal from GSOMIA (military intelligence sharing) and other contentious issues with Japan, and, of course, denuclearization issues with North Korea. These present the prospect of a difficult summit ( 고난도 담화 ) between President Moon Jae In and President Trump, when the former arrives for a three day visit in the US September 22, for the upcoming UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately, the concurrent poor treatment of South Korea by the far right leaders, Abe and Trump, has the appearance of great power manipulation of the democratic government on the basis of pure power politics reminiscent of late 19th and early 20th Century imperialism which destroyed Korean sovereignty. South Korea is still struggling against unjust political legacies imposed by the US and Japan that the latter allies disingenuously evade. It is extremely unlikely that President Moon will acquiesce to their pressures to give up South Korea's recently asserted sovereignty or submit to "make Japan great again," initiatives or other Japanese revisionist moves, tacitly supported by the US. He will however, while weathering the current storm, do his best to keep the US-Korea alliance as strong as possible, and encourage measures to facilitate new diplomatic talks between the US and North Korea.

Some thoughts on Panmunjom summit meeting

I'll believe there is a shift in the US position when I see it. The problem isn't just a couple of personalities like Bolton and Pompeo. Biegun is not that reliable and issues vague and contradictory statements. He showed limited flexibility before the Hanoi summit and then after went hard line when his bosses failed to negotiate. (See the prior blog entry "Who is Stephen Biegun's Counterpart?"). Now he allegedly is flexible again. An informed observer can only agree with Tim Shorrock's assessment of Biegun's so called flexibility after reading the recent article about his June 30 statements published in the Hankyoreh.

If Biegun favors a step by step approach to the DPRK talks, there's still no sign of it in his public statements. "Biegun says US will maintain sanctions until N. Korea completely denuclearizes."

See http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/900545.html

One can't help but note that Biegun's recent "off the record" statements seem to parallel Mr. Bolton's expansive demands at Hanoi, calling for the removal of all missiles, and all weapons of mass destruction, the favored lexicon of US middle eastern war making. Such an expansion of categorical demands make resolution of nuclear issues all the more unlikely.

The resistance to negotiation with North Korea is institutional and permeates the very structure of the US. It includes Congress, the UN apparatus, the state department, and the cottage industry of pundits, experts, and "scholars" in academia and non-profits, representing their defense industry sponsors who flood the media with the never ending propaganda against negotiations with North Korea 24-7.

It was just the media choreography of the Moon-Kim meeting that Trump sought to copy. He has yet to demonstrate the political will to engage in reciprocal confidence building measures at the negotiating table. The fiasco at Hanoi proved this.

President Moon's meeting with Kim at Panmunjom on April 27, 2018, captured the media world wide and stimulated speculation about what could be.

The very steps and gestures that Moon took that day with Kim Jong Un were carefully mimicked by Trump at Panmunjom with Kim. While this media buildup about "love letters" and the impending visit to the DMZ was unfolding (similar in nature to the prelude of the unveiling of Al Capone's vault), US diplomats were still twisting the knife in North Korea's back at the UN. While Trump feigned friendship for the North Korean leader, the US delegation at the UN were seeking reduction of refined fuel exports to the DPRK to zero, and encouraging the members to comply with repatriation of North Korean workers abroad as scheduled by a previous UN resolution. This is the two sided face of US diplomacy referred to by South Korea's former Unification Minister Chong Se Hyun as the policies of an "Indian killing long haired white general," after Hanoi.

Thae Yong Ho, the right wing pundit and North Korean defector, says that Trump was trying to emulate Nixon's historic visit to China. This is nonsense. No credit could ever be given by the South Korean right to President Moon Jae In's leadership in his approach to North Korea and Kim Jong Un. Trump never could get the imagery from the Moon Kim Panmunjom summit out of his mind. The significance of Trump stepping on the North Korea side of the military demarcation line really doesn't mean much if anything. President Moon's gesture was far more meaningful. It meant "We are one people." For Trump it meant nothing but a campaign media stunt, to show he could compete with Xi Jinping, among others.

Who is Stephen Biegun's North Korean Counterpart?

If US Special Representative to North Korea, Stephen Biegun, were to go to Panmunjeom to meet with a working group delegation for renewed negotiations, who would his North Korean counterpart be? Kim Hyuk Chol, Biegun's prior negotiating counterpart on the DPRK side prior to the disaster at Hanoi, may no longer serve in that role. His major flaw, if you will, was not discerning the apparent lack of sincerity in Biegun's statements before Hanoi. Chairman Kim's embarrassment at Hanoi, ostensibly orchestrated by John Bolton's all or nothing approach, appears to have been blamed in large part on Kim Hyuk Chol. Kim Hyuk Chol was reported to have been summarily executed thereafter but there were subsequent reports that he was in custody being interrogated about his role in the debacle, which isn't a good sign either. Ironically, after being led down the primrose path by Mr. Biegun, Ambassador Kim, might be the best representative North Korea could field at this point. He would have a healthy dose of skepticism for anything Mr. Biegun might say, as he is making those "flexibility" sounds again.

But here are some contradictory comments from Biegun , after and before, the failed summit at Hanoi, noted in a March 12, Telegraph article:

“Biegun: “Nothing can be agreed until everything can be agreed.” – a losing strategy,” tweeted Jenny Town, a Korea specialist at the Stimson Centre, a Washington think tank.

and:

Mr Biegun, meanwhile, had indicated in an speech at Stanford University at the end of January that the US was willing to take a more stage by stage approach to the issue – a policy favoured by Pyongyang.

“We have communicated to our North Korean counterparts that we are prepared to pursue – simultaneously and in parallel – all of the commitments our two leaders made in their joint statement at Singapore last summer,” he said, referring to the two leaders’ first meeting in the city-state last June.*

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/12/us-will-not-accept-incremental-disarmament-insists-envoy-north/
US will not accept 'incremental' disarmament, insists envoy to North Korea

Beigun in his recent public statements has been making similarly enticing remarks to those before Hanoi. Perhaps he thinks no one notices the inconsistency. Here is a statement he made at the Atlantic Council on June 19:

Both sides understand the need for a flexible approach… We have to go beyond the formulas that for the past 25 years have failed to resolve this problem,” Biegun said. “We have made clear that the US is looking for meaningful and verifiable steps on denuclearization and we understand that in the North Korean view this is possible, but needs to proceed in context with broader discussions of security guarantees and improved overall relations.” *

*https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/door-is-wide-open-for-negotiations-with-north-korea-us-envoy-says
‘Door is Wide Open’ for Negotiations with North Korea, US Envoy Says

Sound familiar? Beigun emphasized that the working level representative on the North Korean side needed to be empowered to negotiate, in an apparent reference to the limitations of the top down approach taken by Chairman Kim. Does he not share the same problem with the fickle president?

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 6.25) Graphic images (left to right) Choe Son Hui, Stephen Biegun, Kim Hyuk Chol, and unknown.

Channel A News Top Ten news analysts in their discussion felt logical alternatives to Kim Hyuk Chol would be Choi Son Hui, First Deputy Foreign Minister and American affairs "expert," Ri Yong Ho, DPRK Foreign Minister, or perhapss some other as yet unanticipated envoy. Kim Jong Bong, an expert commmentator on North Korean affairs, floated the possibility of former Prime Minister Ri Su Yong stepping into the role to negotiate with Stephen Biegun. Here are some relevant Wikipedia entries on Ri:

In May 2016, Ri Su-yong was replaced by Ri Yong-ho as the foreign minister. The shuffle was followed by the 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea,[3] which elected Ri Su-yong a full member and Vice Chairman of the 7th Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea,[12][13] a full member of the Politburo of the Workers' Party of Korea, and the director of the party's International Relations Department.[13] In 2017, he was elected chairman of the Diplomatic Commission of the Supreme People's Assembly.[14]

It is unlikely that Ri Yong Ho, Choe, or Ri Su Yong, or even Kim Hyuk Chol, will be fooled by Stephen Biegun's overtures again. His formulaic tactics don't seem to have changed. However, Kim Jong Un's receptivity to Trump's letters seems somewhat unexpected and naive under the circumstances. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice...? Is he just holding out the possibility of an election campaign extravaganza summit event for President Trump? Kim is likely as disingenuous and superficial in his approach as the US representatives playing along with their game just buying time to see what happens to Trump.

(Source- Arirang News 6.21) Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho (far right) and Party Director of International Relations Ri Su Hong (second from right) present with Kim Jong Un at the table for the summit meeting with Xi Jinping's delegation in Pyongyang. These two are senior to Choe Son Hui in the party hierarchy. (click to expand picture)

Trump may visit DMZ while in South Korea sparking rumors

It's amusing the lengths the South Korean media will go to guess what exactly the "interesting" contents of the letter Kim was pictured reading so intently in the pose shown by KCNA may have been:

(Source- YTN News 6.24) 1. US Presidential letterhead. 2. Addressee/ Sender 3. Assumed greetings 4. Main contents 5. Assumed closing 6. Two bold underlines 7. Trump's signature

It isn't clear who put the underlines on the bottom of the page. It's so frustrating, because it almost seems as if it might be possible to see through the paper and read the letter if one had the right specialized equipment. The message could be something like, "I'll be in the Joint Security Area on the 29th, have your people call my people. Hope to see you there. " Maybe this is an illusion like so many things concerning US- North Korean relations. The rife speculation and guesswork is indicative of the importance of this matter to South Koreans.

An article was published by Reuters today, which discussed Trump's upcoming visit to South Korea for a summit meeting with President Moon, after the G-20 meeting in Osaka, Japan, is completed. Here is the part of that news that is prompting rumors in South Korea:

Trump is considering a visit to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas, a South Korean official said. Trump wanted to go there during a 2017 trip to South Korea but heavy fog prevented it.

Kim and Moon held their historic first summit in the DMZ last year, so a Trump visit to the border between the two Koreas this weekend could spark speculation of a meeting with Kim there.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northkorea/trump-to-visit-south-korea-as-pompeo-raises-hope-for-new-north-korea-talks-after-letter-idUSKCN1TP0QS

There really isn't a lot of time in the schedule for a Trump-Kim meeting at the DMZ, and there hasn't been time enough yet for any significant preparation for meaningful nuclear negotiation at the working level by qualified experts. Trump is arriving in South Korea the afternoon on the 29th and scheduled to summit with Moon on the 30th, and then is scheduled to leave South Korea.

Jong Se Hyun former Unification Minister in South Korea started this speculation yesterday in a radio interview. He said there is really no reason Trump couldn't cross the DMZ causing an international media sensation. As an extraordinary character like Trump might want to do to give his reelection campaign a big boost. Critics of Jong have said that this is wishful thinking on his part. Other South Korean observers say that there hasn't been enough time even for security preparations and that an impromptu summit meeting is just unprecedented and illogical. YTN News and Channel A News Top Ten covered this story today. Jong Se Hyun said in the YTN interview today that any meeting at the DMZ were it to take place would only provide an opportunity to shake hands. The most that could be expected would be that such a meeting whatever its public relations value to the respective leaders, would potentially mark the commencement of a schedule for working groups from the US and North Korea, to meet and generate more concrete arrangements for renewed negotiations between the two states.

Reuters reported yesterday that Trump has no plans to meet with Kim Jong Un while in South Korea after the G-20 Summit according to an unnamed senior administration official.

Ri Son Gwon out at DPRK Reunification Office?

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 5.22) Ri Son Gwon to top South Korean business leaders visiting North Korea in September 2018, on a trip with President Moon Jae In: Did the nengmyun (North Korean cold noodle dish) go down your throat?

Ri Son Gwon, Minister of the Motherland Peaceful Unification Committee of the DPRK, appears to have been ousted according to official sources in the ROK Unification Ministry. He was observed in a commemorative photograph taken on April 10, 2019, of members of the Plenary Meeting of the DPRK Party Central Committee. Beyond this the South Korean Unification Ministry spokesperson could not provide additional confirmation. South Korean Unification Minister, Kim Yeon Chol, recently visited the Kaesong Liaison Office, May 8, to discuss arrangements for an upcoming meeting with South Korean business leaders who wish to visit their inactive factory facilities in Kaesong, North Korea. His counterpart Ri Son Gwon was not present, so he asked the North Korean side to convey his greetings. According to undisclosed intelligence sources, it is believed the replacement for Ri may be Im Yong Chol (림용철).

https://www.mk.co.kr/news/politics/view/2019/05/337308/

(Source- News TVChosun- 6.1.2018) Ri Son Gwon to South Korean reporters at Panmunjeom: In the future don't ask questions out of tenor with the times, I will consider them rude.

According to Channel A Top Ten news analysts, the continued non-appearance of Ri Son Gwon in public events is related to the debacle at the Hanoi summit and the fall from grace of Kim Yong Chol, who was reported on April 24, to have been replaced as the Unification Front chief. Kim Yong Chol was regarded as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's counterpart in denuclearization negotiations until the break at the second US- North Korean summit in Hanoi. According to reports, there was little love lost between Kim Yong Chol and Mike Pompeo. Kim Yong Chol did not attend the summit in Vladivostock with the Russian president Vladimir Putin. Ri Son Gwon was regarded as Kim Yong Chol's right hand, and was responsible for conducting negotiations with South Korea. The disappearance from public view of Ri is regarded as further evidence of turmoil, if not an all out purge, in North Korea's management of foreign affairs and in particular reflects a shift of authority from the Unification Front to the Foreign Office of North Korea where Choe Son Hui has apparently taken the leading role in dealings with US since the break at Hanoi.

Pompeo Tells Kim Jong Un What to Say

(Source- Channel A News - Saturday ranking 5.5) Pompeo says he hopes Kim Jong Un will announce on April 11th at the Supreme People's Assembly that he will denuclearize.

Not surprisingly the two South Korean national security and foreign policy experts on the program didn't expect that to happen. One of the experts felt that Pompeo was trying to elicit from Kim Jong Un a public commitment to denuclearization in the domestic political context of North Korea, that would provide greater evidence of Kim Jong Un's true intentions so he could gain American trust. According to most American oriented observers, the trust issue only works one way, it is the North only that can't be trusted. The Supreme People's Assembly meets on the same day that President Moon Jae In will be present in Washington D.C. for his summit with Donald Trump. Pompeo's recent negative comments about South Korean desires for joint economic initiatives with North Korea were yet another attempt to sandbag the upcoming US- South Korean summit ostensibly softened with Pompeo's hollow expression of empathy for how the Korean people feel and his patronizing condescension toward the Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung Hwa. This wasn't discussed in the Channel A News broadcast but was evident in other Korean language reports. Earlier in the program, the expert guests speculated that the failure at Hanoi was due to the incompetence of Kim Jong Un's translator and failures by Kim Yong Chol, and Kim Hyuk Chol. Both seem to have disappeared from view since the Hanoi debacle. Nothing is left to be desired on the US side apparently. The US offered nothing at Hanoi, but made unprecedented demands not reflected in the joint statement from Singapore.

(VOA News 4.6) Pompeo- US government policy is abundantly clear, economic sanctions and UN security council sanctions, will not be eased until the goal of full final denuclearization is achieved.

Channel A News is a conservative broadcaster hostile to the Moon administration, and harping on every error, big or small, his administration makes in an attempt to rehabilitate the conservatives who were devastated in the last off cycle elections and whose previous presidential leadership is now in prison for corruption and abuse of power. The conservative party response in the National Assembly has basically been to boycott all legislative initiatives from the Moon administration and to attack the foreign and defense ministries at legislative hearings whenever possible. The Channel A experts talked about a wrinkled South Korean flag (Tegukki) displayed at a meeting with Spanish diplomats as bringing shame on South Korea and placing Foreign Minister Kang Kyung Hwa's leadership in question.

Ahead of US-ROK Summit- US Pressure for Joint Military Exercises

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 04.03) North Korean anger---Fate of Max Thunder? General Craparotta, (joint) military exercises must continue. "South Korean marine forces are welcome to participate in RIMPAC exercises at any time." "You are invited to the Talisman Sabre exercises."

In view of the reduction and renaming of the traditional spring large scale US-ROK joint military exercises Key Resolve, and Foal Eagle, the US has invited Korean marine forces to participate in RIMPAC amphibious exercises and also invited South Korea to play a role in the Joint US Australian Talisman Sabre exercise. The new name for the reduced springtime exercises was Tong Maeng (alliance). The perspectives at the meeting early this week between the US acting Secretary of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, and the Korean Defense Minister, Jeong Kyeong-doo differed somewhat. The Korean side seemed focused on demonstrating in the necessary processes earlier agreed, the qualifications necessary for the transfer of operational wartime control of the Combined Forces Command from the United States to the South Korean military command. Tong Maeng provided the earliest opportunity to begin this process. On the other hand, the US is focused on the joint military exercises necessary to demonstrate the strength of the mutual commitments of the two allies by maintaining and improving operational readiness and military cooperation.

Public invitations by Commander, US Marine Corps Pacific, Lt. Gen. Lewis A. Craparotta, to the South Korean government to participate in RIMPAC and Talisman Sabre out of area joint military exercises, are viewed as ammunition to conservative elements in South Korea who question democratic party President Moon Jae In's commitment to the US Korean alliance and whether that commitment is somehow faltering in the face of his inititives toward North Korea. Those initiatives, among others, included the military agreements affecting military operations in and near the DMZ and Northern Limit Lines and also seeking sanctions waivers for joint North South economic projects. Among other measures tacitly agreed by the allies in the course of negotiations with North Korea related to denuclearization issues were the removal of so called "strategic assets" of the United States Armed Forces from the immediate vicinity of the Korean peninsula and the suspension or reduction of major joint military exercises during the pendency of US- North Korean denuclearization negotiations. The fate of major joint air exercises such as the upcoming Max Thunder seem uncertain at this point. One of the Top Ten analysts stated that the scale of Max Thunder would be reduced and the name would be changed. The RIMPAC and Talisman Sabre exercises represent an opportunity for South Korean forces to operate with US and other allied forces, in regions further from the Korean peninsula and should pose less of an arguable provocation to North Korea.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 04.03) Number One story: US to ROK, "Stand firmly on the side of the alliance." Sensitive differences between the lines. State Dept echos US calls for South Korean participation in US, Japan, Indo- Pacific alliance operations. US calls for a new southern defense strategy by South Korea (for the first time) to cooperate in a three way Indo-Pacific alliance with the US and Japan. Undoubtedly, any sort of direct military association with Japan is undesirable from the South Korean administration's perspective and has been a long time US foreign policy objective in Asia.

Nevertheless recently publicized comments in the Min Jok Kiri publication in North Korea, apparently questioned the recent US military operations in South Korea during the month of March which included combined exercises using the topography of South Korea, with its characteristic mountain and valley formations, to simulate what Sin In Kyun described in his program yesterday as "decapitation" operations. These operations allegedly simulating attacks on North Korea targets such as Yongbyun, or other nuclear targets, or command and control elements in Pyongyang. The exercise objective according to Shin was to increase proficiency in attacking North Korea, and to "send a message." Shin claimed he gained this understanding at a seminar in which Lt. Gen Craparotta, made a presentation associated with the 70th Anniversay of the foundation of the ROK Marine Corps. The air exercise in March actually involved a limited amount of various helicopters and Osprey aircraft (14 total and an estimated 400 personnel) and perhaps one C-130 aircraft using terrain following incursion tactics according to Shin. The North Korean MinJok Kiri commentary mocked the nature of reduced operations as "three penny" yet at the same time criticized the wisdom of such joint military exercises which nevertheless threaten, according to them, the progress in the lessening of military tensions on the peninsula.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 04.03) The proffered strategy referred to in a Chinese (Han Ja) classical aphorism, Sacrifice your own flesh to break the adversary's bones.

Channel A News analysts today speculated that perhaps Moon Jae In would try to link further joint ROK military exercise cooperation with the US Indo-Pacific Command to US concessions to the South Korean desire to have some level of economic cooperation initiatives proceed with exemptions from US/UN sanctions on North Korea. This of course is directly tied to the US-ROK differences over the so called "small deal- big deal" dispute in the negotiating approach taken by the US to North Korea at Hanoi. The "small deal- big deal" phrase is used as short hand for the fundamental difference in views between the Moon administration and the US on the proper procedural approach to negotiating with North Korea, namely, the all or nothing approach favored by the hardliners like John Bolton in the US, revealed in full play at Hanoi, or the step by step, phased approach to build trust between the parties with mutual simultaneous concessions. One analyst on the program suggested President Moon hoped that a "medium deal," could be brokered.

ROK National Security Official Nails the US North Korean Stalemate

(Source- JTBC News 3.31) Kim Hyun Jong visiting US, "Top down dialogue is important." Kim Hyun Jong, Deputy Director, Blue House National Security Office, "I don't think a definition of comprehensive denuclearization is is the crucial issue. We need to discuss the method for how to achieve that objective."

In other words, it's the basic step by step method versus the all or nothing, no concessions, no trust building approach favored by neo-cons Bolton and Pompeo. US officials, elected or otherwise, and Korea "experts" inside the beltway echo chamber just can't get their heads around this issue. Either that, or they just want regime change in North Korea and can't imagine bargaining with the communist dictatorship under any circumstances. Kim Hyun Jong mentions top down dialogue with favor, because he knows who the problem officials are on the US side. Foreign Minister Kang Kyung Hwa is returning to South Korea from her talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It is unlikely any progress was made at that level. They discussed the agenda for the Moon-Trump summit coming up April 11. What if anything transpired with Stephen Beigun in Beijing is still unknown. The South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo will meet with acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan on Monday. He will then meet with CSIS "Korean experts."

Tony Dalton, Director, Nuclear Policy Division, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, made a similar point to Kim Hyun Jong's about this fixation of the definition of denuclearization being an obstacle to progress on VOA's Washington Talk show, March 30. If you can't agree on a process, then you're not going to make any progress on substantive matters.

Jenny Town on the neo-cons' hardline act at Hanoi, quoted in Reuters just recently:

“This is what Bolton wanted from the beginning and it clearly wasn’t going to work,” Town said. “If the U.S. was really serious about negotiations they would have learned already that this wasn’t an approach they could take.”

Town added, “It’s already been rejected more than once, and to keep bringing it up ... would be rather insulting. It’s a non-starter and reflects absolutely no learning curve in the process.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-document-exclusive/exclusive-with-a-piece-of-paper-trump-called-on-kim-to-hand-over-nuclear-weapons-idUSKCN1RA2NR


This article was part of an "exclusive" in Reuters. This blog published an analysis of the US bait and switch act in Hanoi, here, on March 14.

Update: In anticipation of his upcoming summit with President Trump, South Korean President Moon Jae In gave his characteristic positive statements one would expect in the difficult situation he finds himself in currently vis a vis the US and North Korean denuclearization negotiations. After engaging in hopeful aspirations, recounting the improvement of the situation since the crisis in 2017, President Moon made one enigmatic comment (reported in NKnews.org): "We will make our own way if a road is blocked, and we will step forward to carve a path if there is no way." He also spoke positively about top down negotiations and indirectly criticized US officials in this respect as reported by NKnews:

The South Korean President however, criticized some for "attempting to reverse the flow of peace on the Korean peninsula," and attempting to "return to the past of conflict and confrontation."

https://www.nknews.org/2019/04/north-korea-and-the-u-s-still-committed-to-diplomacy-south-korean-president-says/ (paywall)

Warnings, Indications, and Recriminations

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 3.27) North Korea,- Kim Jong Un missile signal. Bulguksong missile series: Bulguksong-1, submarine launched variant, 2500 km max range; Bulguksong- 2, land based variant, 2000 km max range; and Bulguksong-3, missile test underway? submarine launched variant, unknown range.

The presentation by Victor Cha before a Senate subcommittee on March 26 was mentioned in a Channel A News broadcast covering the indications of possible Bulguksong ballistic missile launch preparations, given electronic reconnaissance findings and allegedly other reports. Channel A News Top Ten reported today that US RC- 135 electronic reconnaissance aircraft have detected telemetry coming from North Korea characteristicly associated with Bulguksong missile tests. This is a line that Channel A News analysis quoted from Victor Cha, favorably, in reference to the earlier Sohae space launch site restoration activities by North Korea reported shortly after the Hanoi Summit:

"This does not suggest that a rocket launch or nuclear test is imminent, but it does suggest that the situation could take a
turn downwards before a resumption of diplomacy"

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/032619_Cha_Testimony.pdf

So the electronic signaling is being taken by Channel A News analysts as an indirect indication suggesting that North Korea is attempting to induce the US to return to the negotiating table. The Bulguksong (Polaris/ north star) missile series which includes submarine launched variants, is a solid fuel missile and is a more viable ground based missile tactically speaking because of short preparation times for firing which does not include the need to fuel up as with liquid fueled missiles like the Musudan.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 3.27) Graphic depicts location of missile development center in Sinheung, South Hamgyong Province, North Korea. The Bulguksang- 2 is regarded as the representative solid fueled ballistic missile of North Korea.

Cha's presentation on the path forward after Hanoi, avoids the primary issue in the negotiations mentioned in my earlier opinion on Asian policy experts.* That issue concerns the "all or nothing," so called "one bundle" diplomatic approach favored by the US rather than a phased, step by step approach, to negotiations with simultaneous reciprocal concessions to build trust, favored by both Koreas, China, and Russia. It is a fundamentally differing view on how negotiations should proceed as a practical trust building process, rather than the interminable dispute on both sides on who is responsible for mutual distrust and acts obstructing nuclear negotiations progress made in the past.

Cha talks about the dilemma of American "reasonableness" and to expect allies to request changes in the US position. The only ally publicly asking the US to change its uncompromising and impractical one sided approach is South Korea. Currently, relations are at a low point which has been evident in the failure of the Secretary of State to accept a request by the ROK Foreign Minister Kang Kyung Hwa to meet with him and a message from the US State department, to the effect that if you are coming to talk about Kumgangsan and Kaesong don't bother. Another angry remark by Pompeo himself last December toward the Blue House National Security Adviser, Chung Eui-yong, calling him "a liar," was also made public this week, as reported by Channel A News yesterday, in an escalation of recriminations and ill consideration toward the ally most directly affected by US diplomatic blundering, and the lack of a more constructive approach.

*https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2019/03/asian-policy-experts.html

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 3.26) Story 2 - Delicate US ICBM intercept test conducted. US State Department source (to South Korea): If you are going to talk about the reopening of the Kumgangsan tourist site, or restarting operations at the Kaesong joint industrial site (in North Korea), Washington says don't come.

A US ICBM intercept test in the Pacific was reported earlier this week.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117811927

Dan Coats Visit Aftermath

(Source JTBC News 3.22) Number 2 story today. North Korea withdraws from Kaesong Liaison Office. (No. 1 story on Channel A News Top Ten.) It appears as if North Korea withdrew from the joint North South Liaison office as a response to increasing sanctions from the US.


After three weeks, US comes up with new explanation for failure of Hanoi talks. Andrew Kim, former CIA Korean Center Chief, says, North Korea requested withdrawal of US strategic forces from Hawaii and Guam. Dan Coats cancelled his visit to Panmunjum for unknown reasons. Some Americans say North Korean withdrawal of its Kaesong Liaison delegation doesn't matter because...they're not Koreans? Because they don't like the Moon government anyway? It's just another "edge of cliff" maneuver by the North? Maybe they withdrew because the US completely disregarded advice from their South Korean ally at Hanoi and are currently blocking virtually all joint South Korean economic initiatives with the North. The office had been open for 190 days and was the first such joint office operated by the two Korean states since the Korean conflict.

(Source Channel A News Top Ten 3.22) Request for withdrawal of Swan of Death (B-1 bombers) from Guam. The US strategic resources that make Kim afraid.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few other measures that North Korea can take to damage relations with South Korea, and increase tensions, short of launching a missile. They could start disregarding or deconstructing the extensive measures agreed to in military agreements with South Korea to defuse tensions in the DMZ and the Joint Security Area, and the buffer zones restricting military air and ship activities north and south of the DMZ and Northern Limit Lines in the West and East Seas. Such actions would have the effect of discrediting and destabilizing the Moon government, something about which conservatives in South Korea, and opponents to negotiations in the US could care less.

Noose Tightening in Northeast Asia

This is a followup to my review of Channel A News Top Ten analysis yesterday "Cheese in the trap." Channel A News Top Ten continues on March 21, with their "drumbeat of war" propaganda aimed at North Korea supported with US military information.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.21) 9:40am, March 19, US B-52s approach Korean region. The flight went on northward, to approach Kamchatka.

One of the Channel A News conservative national security analyst's interpretations of the B-52 mission in the region associated with other mission aircraft exercises went on to surmise the exercise was a clear warning in response to statements from persons such as Choi Son Hui, Deputy Foreign Minister of the DPRK in respect to the failure of the Hanoi summit. The Top Ten analyst asserted this was a consensus among a number of national security experts.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 3.21) Crewman appear to be loading a multiple ejector cylinder for air launched weapons. Chiron reads: US discloses navigation positions for B-52 mission, Warning signal to North Korea?

Other subjects covered in the Channel A News Top Ten broadcast included the visit to South Korea by DNI Dan Coats, who apparently was accompanied by former CIA Korea Team chief, Andrew Kim, who is now "retired" and working at Stanford. It is said that Coats made a formal visit with President Moon, and gave a classified intergovernmental presentation concerning North Korean issues. One of the few comments publicly revealed by Andrew Kim was that there are large differences in views between the South Korean administration and the US concerning the nature of an effective approach to denuclearization objectives. Dan Coats was cited in other venues saying there isn't any question that Kim isn't going to give up his nuclear weapons, and that there really isn't anything further to decide on that issue, it's final, or words to that effect. The key difference has to do with the appropriate process in negotiations, step by step, with reciprocal concessions by each side, or the one bundle, all or nothing approach adopted decisively at Hanoi by the US.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.21) US Wolfhound (SOC aircraft) detected in Japan. Topic One ROK US visions of North Korea differ greatly. "Has a crisis begun in the US-ROK alliance?" Andrew Kim, "Regarding North Korea, ROK- US visions differ greatly" (on secret lecture presentation in Seoul) The google transcription from the host says "Even so, the voice coming from the US administration toward the South Korean government is changing. Quite frankly, complaints are expressed concerning ROK policy (toward North Korea).

Also reported on the was the level of public disclosure and openness of this fundamental difference between the two allies. Tension was said to be at an intermediate level, without accusations or criticisms being openly traded by named high level government officials, but primarily in the realm of anonymous high level officials related to the respective foreign offices. One anonymous high level US state department source allegedly said, I know that the US has no intention of asking the Blue House (President Moon) to act in a role as mediator or facilitator with North Korea. In another comment, the US accused the liberal Moon administration of failing to guarantee freedom of the press. In a final indication of declining cooperation, the conservative Top Ten analysts discussed apparent signs in the US budget proposal that the US would use funds allocated for the so called "Tango" wartime emergency bunker planned for joint use by the US-ROK alliance in wartime for the Mexico border wall.

Incidentally, Jim Cramer, the irritating financial pundit and self promotion expert had an extraordinary anti-Chinese rant deploring their untrustworthiness, their national character resembling the Shawshank warden, and their alleged unreasonable military expansion into the US Indo-Pacific jurisdiction. The confusion of trade, financial and military issues in this xenophobic, if not outright racist rant, seems to reflect the exasperation of Wall Street with an economic race that they may be losing.

(Source- The Coming War on China, John Pilger, youtube)

The apparent inability of Wall Street, and Washington leadership circles to refrain from one war after another in far away places with dubious motives and undefined objectives, plays a role in the failure to compete effectively in the twenty first century without militaristic merchantile policies more characteristic of the 1930s than the 21st Century. Perhaps Mr. Cramer needs to look at a chart showing the extent, or overextension, of US military bases and national resources in far east before accusing China of unreasonable military expansionism.

(Source- The Coming War on China, John Pilger, youtube)

Moon Chung In Tries to Salvage Hope from the Hanoi Train Wreck

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.15) Gangster like US- North Korea done negotiating? US Foreign Affairs contribution: Moon Chung In, President's foreign affairs unification security special report. "A trivial dispute can bring about disastrous results." "The US must allow South Korea flexibility."

Moon Chung In as an unofficial adviser and spokesperson for the views of the Moon administration on relations with North Korean has to be optimistic about the failure of the Hanoi negotiations, because the fate of the Moon administration is intimately tied up with improving relations and economic ties with the North. Apparently, he is not ready to admit what a train wreck Trump, Bolton and Pompeo carried out. Choi Son Hui, Deputy Foreign Minister of North Korea said yesterday the talks were all but dead. Among the Deputy Foreign Minister Choi's statements presented on the March 15 Channel A News Top Ten broadcast in video out takes were: (1) "North Korea has no desire to capitulate to US demands;" (2) "The US squandered a golden opportunity;" (3) "We're not thinking of this kind of negotiations;" and (4) "We have decided negotiations to denuclearize with the US are over."

The only thing absent from the pronouncements were criticisms of President Trump. So it is suggested that what remains of the mythical "good relationship" between the two leaders, might allow the possibility of renewed negotiations. The optimists have to hang their hat somewhere because this is a devastating blow for the South Korean administration. Attempts by South Korean diplomats to ingratiate themselves with Stephen Biegun's working group and it's all or nothing approach, have the appearance of unsightly groveling while the US follows what is essentially the "Libyan" regime change model with North Korea. Because of the US all or nothing approach with no sanctions relief or waivers to the bitter end, South Korea has next to nothing to offer in an approach as intermediary, while economic conditions worsen in North Korea.

Maybe South Korean President Moon Jae In can pull a rabbit out of a hat? From Moon Chung In's opinion in Foreign Affairs, The Next Stage of the Korean Peace Process :

Speaking anonymously, a senior State Department official now claimed that “nobody in the administration advocates a step-by-step approach. In all cases, the expectation is a complete denuclearization of North Korea as a condition for . . . all the other steps being taken.” The Moon government’s ability to make a deal between the parties, and to advance parallel processes, will be critically hampered if the Trump administration now rejects a step-by-step process out of hand.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2019-03-14/next-stage-korean-peace-process


While the Blue House is not taking Choi's statements as the definitive indicator of no possibility of further negotiations, that possibility hangs by unlikely threads. The first according to Moon Chung In is that the US needs to demonstrate flexibility toward North Korea and toward South Korean joint economic overtures with North Korea such as Kumgansang and Kaseong. Otherwise South Korea has no leverage. The US has stated repeatedly that isn't going to happen. In fact sanctions are closing in on North Korea, foreign revenues are drying up and food is in scarce supply. Humanitarian efforts such as the public health anti TB efforts in North Korea are even being shut down. Discussion of more sanctions is counterproductive according to Moon, but everyday, we hear Bolton and a coterie of demagogues in the Congress either initiating or threatening more sanctions. This is little more than a regime change policy.

Secondly, Moon says the smallest disputes now can result in disaster. Yet the largest dispute has already happened with no reasonable prospect of compromise on the US side. That fundamental dispute concerns whether the all or nothing approach taken by the US side or the step by step, phased trust building approach, with simultaneous mutual concessions, favored by four of the six parties involved in negotiations in the past, is going to prevail. That dispute has not advanced one step since Singapore due to US dissembling and intransigence.

Hubris of US Duplicity at Hanoi

The US is projecting various falsehoods about the nature of the failure in Hanoi to reach an agreement of any kind on denuclearization measures. In the first instance, what has to be noted is the burglary and holding prisoner of DPRK diplomatic personnel in their embassy in Madrid on February 22 by personnel observed on CCTV cameras and identified as related to the CIA. Channel A News Top Ten analysts in their podcast on youtube today, said that at least two of the ten people who invaded the North Korean Embassy compound and bound, beat and interrogated the embassy personnel there, were confirmed to be employees of the CIA. Thereafter, they stole hand phones and computers from the North Korean embassy building before fleeing in stolen embassy vehicles.

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.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.14) Spain: North Korea Embassy attack incident; Afterward Kim Hyuk Chol not seen. (foreign affairs) communications office- "It was said that it seems like US (envoy) Biegun, lost trust in Kim Hyuk Chol." Biegun, "I requested Kim Hyuk Chul to agree to total denuclearization, but didn't hear a response."


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.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.12) US, eyes wide open pressures Kim Jong Un. Moves by the North a decisive moment. US: "South Korea shooting for the moon." Strange atmosphere in US-Korean alliance? "Stated by a person related to the US House, with respect to relief from anti North Korean sanctions, 'the South Korean government is shooting for the Moon,' expressions as far as this heard."

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.