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.

Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol suspended for 2 months by Discipline Committee

Yoon Seok-yeol, current Prosecutor General of South Korea. Yoon is the current leading contender on the right to be a candidate for president of South Korea.

Yoon Seok-yeol was suspended for two months by a Disciplinary Committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice after a hearing of two days. Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae referred six allegations of professional misconduct to the committee for disposition. The committee found grounds to support four of six charges of misconduct against South Korea's top prosecutor. Some of these six allegations pertained to his earlier service as the Chief of the Seoul Central District Branch Office. The decision to discipline Yoon, the sitting Prosecutor General of South Korea was described as "unprecedented" by YTN news in their brief news bulletin and video. Which of the six charges of misconduct were recognized by the committee was unclear.

Both before and after each of the two days of hearings at which testimony was adduced, Yoon's attorney's moved to cancel the hearing based on a contention that the committee's authority over the prosecutor general was unfounded and unconstitutional. Additionally Yoon asserted in one motion that the hearing officials all had conflicts of interest. According to one report, discussions with Yoon's representatives resulted in three officials being replaced by alternate committee members. A renewed motion on the second day of hearings, was summarily dismissed. Yoon doesn't recognize the committee's standing or decision and intends to challenge the determination in court. The Ministry of Justice indicated that the decision will be forwarded to the Blue House for approval or denial as soon as possible. News accounts concerning the committee hearing process indicated that President Moon's office would or could not modify the decision but only approve or disapprove it.

It’s fair to say that democratic and progressive elements in South Korea are disappointed by the decision having looked forward to Yoon’s dismissal from office and perhaps other administrative sanctions. Reportedly, there were lengthy deliberations among the board members keeping them up virtually all night until the decision was announced at approximately four am, Seoul time. It does have the appearance of what we in the US call a “compromise verdict.” As an administrative disciplinary board, it is likely that some members did not feel comfortable treating Yoon Seok-yeol’s transgressions in more decisive fashion. Yoon is currently considered the leading conservative candidate for the next presidential election in South Korea in 2022. An outright dismissal from office would have rocked the South Korean political world. The equivocal nature of the decision ensures the ongoing political controversies and legal maneuvers, concerning alleged criminal acts by Yoon, his wife, and mother in law will continue. Yoon’s critics will point to the anticipated opening of the Public Official Corruption Committee which is a new body appointed by the 20th Session of the National Assembly. This body has the authority to hear criminal corruption cases referred for criminal prosecution. Yoon’s critics want his case to be the first case heard by the new body. Critics also call for his impeachment by the National Assembly.

Incidentally, the National Assembly introduced a proposed election law requiring prosecutors and judges who wished to run for electoral office to leave their office at least one year before registering as a candidate. This law if enacted would require Yoon to resign in March 2021 in any case if he wishes to run for office.

Addendum Dec. 16: Some clarification from an SBS report on the "four out of six" specifications or charges against Yoon found to be supported by the disciplinary committee are portrayed in this graphic:

Four specifications were found to be substantiated by the disciplinary committeee. The first substantiated charge deals with the creation and distribution of results of unwarranted investigation into judges in the Justice Department. Two other specifications dealt with the so called Channel A News incident, in which a reporter for Channel A, Lee Dong-jae, corresponded with a defendant in jail for financial crimes and threatened the defendant or otherwise improperly attempted to induce him either directly or through his agent mulitple times to commit perjury to incriminate Yoo Shi-min, a well known liberal media pundit and director from the No Mu-hyun foundation. It is alleged that the Yoon's close subordinate Han Dong-hun coordinated these unlawful activities with the Channel A reporter. Subsequently, Lee and Han were placed under investigation. The two specifications charged that Yoon interfered with prosecutors investigating the Channel A incident, and interfered with the investigation itself. The fourth charge found to be supported by the committee was that Yoon harmed the political independence of the prosecutors office.

Two specifications of misconduct of the six were not found by the court. The findings appear not to have been addressed rather than a finding of no misconduct. Number five alleged improper meeting with owners of the media (subject to investigation or litigation at the time). Number six involved interference with prosecutors investigating his own conduct.

South Korea's Prosecutor General seeks to avoid Disciplinary Committee hearing

South Korea's highest prosecutor is trying to avoid a professional disciplinary hearing scheduled for December 10 by filing a petition with South Korea's Constitutional Court claiming that the process is unfair, violates the law concerning investigation of prosecutors, and is subject to undue influence from the Ministry of Justice which filed the complaint against Yoon.

(Image source- YTN 12.5) Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, "there's a problem with the prosecutor disciplinary law;" Yoon files petition with Supreme Court and seeks injunction.

The disciplinary complaint filed against Yoon by Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae’s office alleges six instances of professional misconduct by Yoon. Perhaps the trickiest charge among them is that he ordered improper investigations of sitting judges, in light of Yoon’s strategy of attempting to obtain early judicial intervention. Justice Minister Chu told reporters that the investigation of judges at Yoon’s direction was clearly unlawful. Other charges involve alleged obstruction of investigations or proceedings in which he had a conflict of interest (these potentially could involve himself, his family members or his subordinates); leaking information to the press (press-prosecution collusion); unethical contact with parties related to ongoing investigations or litigation (also involving the press), and politicizing the prosecution function (targeting high profile political figures on the left for prosecution and declining to prosecute figures from the right). Pending the investigation Yoon has been suspended from his duties. Yoon is also seeking an injunction to stop the disciplinary proceedings, and potentially his suspension, as well, presumably while the Constitutional Court addresses the substance of legal issues raised in his petition. Experts differ in their expectation of what the Constitutional Court might do.

Today there is an unrelated general meeting of representative judges scheduled and the question is whether or not the gathered jurists would add the issue of Yoon’s alleged surveillance of judges to their agenda. There is clearly not a formal procedure or enough time for the judges meeting to adequately consider the issues raised by Yoon’s claims of constitutional issues or any of the other procedural issues or specific charges against him. YTN reported that if ten jurists attending the professional gathering of judges requested it be placed on the agenda it could be added. Yet, such consideration would render little more than the judges opinions or bias in relation to the issues or matters raised, unless the agenda item or items were narrowly construed. A fear is that such consideration might influence the disciplinary hearing on December 10. Conceivably the Constitutional Court itself might be influenced by any relevant pronouncements by the judicial community that emerge from the meeting.

Critics on the left note the hypocritical clamor from the established media regarding Yoon’s alleged independence as a guarantor of constitutionalism is to be expected. The three largest media cartels Chosun Ilbo, Joongang Ilbo, and Donga media are implicated in issues raised by instances of Yoon’s alleged misconduct. Observers note the prospect of the Constitutional Court allowing a preliminary injunction to preclude the disciplinary hearing from taking place would establish a precedent for prospective judicial interference in disciplinary procedures involving government attorneys. Justice Minister Chu stated there is nothing improper about the disciplinary process. Finally, pundits observe the legal challenge in the Constitutional Court to the disciplinary hearing process by Yoon is a stalling tactic by a desperate man, who although accustomed to stalling litigation he doesn’t like until it dies from change of administration or the statute of limitations, is running out of options. Once his removal from office is obtained, pending collateral investigation and litigation against Yoon’s family, subordinates, and economic interests he has been protecting up till now could potentially proceed unimpeded. President Moon Jae-in stated he will follow the determination of the disciplinary hearing with respect to Yoon’s dismissal.


Note: the original publication of this post incorrectly identified the Supreme Court as the venue for the substantive appeal of the disciplinary hearing determination against Yoon Seok-yeol. The appropriate jurisdiction was the Constitutional Court. 6.28.21

An observation on AI threat analysis

In the legitimate role of threat analysis there is a structural problem with China which involves the language/cultural/historical perceptual barrier. So there is not only a need for an analyst with a strategic and/or tactical analytic background, but they also need to be able to read the language and be well versed in the history and culture. This is a very small group of people here in the US. Frankly there is an institutional bias against cultivating such people or allowing them policy input, lest they get "uppity."

It is so much easier for a generalist in the national security realm, such as generals and policy makers not to have to deal with reports that go against their material inclinations. What policy makers, who are typically industry flaks, are looking for is targeting analysis, not policy analysis. They make the policy. The actual analysts or so called experts who do rise to the top of political and tankie institutions dealing with foreign and national security policy have demonstrated the appropriate deference to the policy makers' institutional goals and their preconceived policies and propaganda. Naturally, they tend to articulate the perspective to which they have been conditioned over the course of their careers by the institutional incentives in place.

The policy makers’ biggest hangup is when people who are in fact expert analysts tell them something that doesn’t jive with the drive for the latest deployment plan for a numbered fleet, weapon system, new base or next war. This happens, not often, but still happens occasionally. Usually a few of these people come out of the woodwork on the eve of the next invasion. So there is a risk to preconceived policy objectives as formulated by public relations and propaganda managers when they have human analysts who know what they are talking about “go rogue” so to speak. With AI, the generalists with their MBAs and degrees in international relations who think they are qualified to speak on any problem anywhere on earth, don’t have to cope with actual experts who may disagree publicly with they say.

AI can substitute for expensive recruitment systems to procure, retain and develop adequate human resources necessary to conduct reliable analysis. Having an adequate pool of this sort of human talent takes years to develop and requires long term planning and resource allocation. This aspect of “threat analysis” policy has always been wanting in the US because it was never a high enough priority. Typically the problem isn’t even recognized until the eve of a crisis with a particular country or in a particular region, usually when the US is on the brink of initiating another war. AI will not compensate for this void. With the proposal to go to AI threat analysis even worse policy disasters are in store. So I think the rule is don’t tell me about policy, just tell me where to drop the bombs. AI can fulfill this role.

Amusing Yoon - Trump contrast

(Source- 정치초단 11.24) Yoon Seok-yeol, is this the US? Are you Trump? There is no basis to this lawsuit!

SBS reported that Yoon Seok-yeol would file a petition for injunction against the disciplinary proceedings against him and the attendant suspension of duties as Prosecutor General of South Korea. The reporter suggested without any legal grounds that Yoon's petition would be successful and block the administrative disciplinary proceedings against him. The report given within less one hour of Minister of Justice, Chu Mi-ae's announcement, is regarded as part of a media strategy to support Yoon and undermine the democratic administration. It was noted that virtually no one from mainstream media in South Korea attended Minister Chu's press conference. The action was described as a boycott of the Ministry of Justice's announcement by the conservative press.* Yoon absurdly conflates himself with an independent branch of government in the constitutional scheme of government.

* 정치초단 11.24, youtube; 윤석열 직무정지' 반응 통쾌하다! SBS 이현영의 희망회로! JTBC의 변희재 드립 "홍석현 회장님 힘내세요" 충성 보도 등 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ejYxC51WhA

There appears to be an interesting parallel in the treatment of Minister Chu by opposition politicians and conservative media and the similar "bypassing" of Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha.* Namely, there is a sexist innuedo by conservative media and other critics that she is incompetent and that her actions are not worthy of serious consideration.

*Kang Kyung-wha opens up about sexism in “male-centered culture of vested interests” Posted on : Nov.17,2020 17:02 KST Modified on : Nov.17,2020 17:02 KST Hankyoreh South Korea By Gil Yun-hyung, http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/970335.html

Yoon Seok-yeol's mother in law indicted for medical fraud scheme

Yonhap News is reporting that the Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's mother in law, Ms. Choi, has been indicted for a medical fraud scheme. Ms. Choi is charged with establishing, illegally and without required medical credentials, in late 2012, a medical organization, and then for five years from 2013 onward participating in the management and operation of a medical convalescent facility in Paju. She is 74 years old. She is accused of misappropriating over 2 billion won in medical benefits She has been indicted without a warrant for pre-trial arrest. Some observers find the determination of no pretrial detention suspicious because she allegedly has suborned perjury, and obstructed justice in other trials in the past.

The current indictment against Choi was brought under the special law for enhanced punishment for economic crimes.

Yoon himself is under investigation by the Ministry of Justice on suspicion of unethical private contacts with the corporate heads of the Chosun Ilbo and Joongang media groups. At the time Joonang's subsidiary JTBC had a defamation complaint pending against a conservative pundit. Chosun Ilbo was being investigated for financial misconduct by the head of its Chosun TV. Yoon is suspected of other professional misconduct including investigating judges in critical cases and interfering in cases in which he has a conflict of interest.

(Image Source- 열린공감TV) Chu Mi-ae Justice Minister of South Korea (left) and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, her insubordinate subordinate.

Last April Choi Kang-uk (no relation to Ms. Choi the accused) an Assembly member on the left accused Yoon of interference in the earlier investigation of his mother in law's three business partners in the illegal medical scheme. The partners have been already been found guilty of fraud, but no charges were brought against Ms. Choi at that time. The reason given that upon her unqualified appointment as director of the medical organization, Ms. Choi obtained a waiver of legal responsibility. Upon reinvestigation of the case, it has been reported that prosecutors revealed one of the partners gave a statement that the legal waiver document is a forgery.

In another development Joongang Daily has reported that a record exists of Yoon meeting with his former colleage, Lee Kyu-chol, during the pendency of an investigation into the Optimus Fund. Allegedly, at the time of their meetings, Lee was advising Optimus which was suspected of financial violations in the management of private and government investments. Yoon, head of the Seoul Prosecutors Central District Branch Office gave a clean bill of health to Optimus which stayed in business a while longer ruining thousands of investors when the investment fund finally collapsed due to financial fraud. This particular report in the Joongang Daily may be a turning point in the remarkably friendly relationship demonstrated by the major media cartels and Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol. Typically they have either ignored reports of suspicious acts by Yoon or his family or caste aspersions on those generating the allegations.

The Blue Roof is reporting in their analysis that Minister Chu Mi-ae has suspended Yoon pending investigation:

https://www.blueroofpolitics.com/p/breaking-news-alert/

LA Times bias evident in article about THAAD affair in South Korea

This is a critique of the recent LA Times article presenting an erroneous view of the THAAD affair in South Korea:

From a crab shack to Hyundai, China’s wrath over a U.S. missile defense system still weighs on South Korea, By VICTORIA KIM NOV. 19, 20202 AM; https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-11-19/south-korea-china-beijing-economy-thaad-missile-interceptor

The THAAD incident demonstrated not so much the undue commercial influence of China on current South Korean policy as the reemergence of traditional Korean foreign policy values formulated to retain sovereignty amongst overbearing and more powerful competing great powers in the region. The reappearance of such an outlook in South Korea after more than 125 years of domination by foreign powers reflects the true emergence of democracy and independence. This has been reflected in the long sought removal of the US presence in Yongsan in central Seoul, (site of the old Japanese imperial garrison), and the removal to Pyongtaek of US military bases and forces from the traditional bases and operating areas north of Seoul and close to the DMZ. Similarly, the current administration of South Korea is not going to lock itself into an anti-China Indo-Pacific alliance which will further restrict its freedom of action to adopt policies seen to be in its national interest.


First of all, it was the prior pliable, corrupt conservative administration of Park Geun-hye that agreed to allow the installation of THAAD launchers in South Korea. The LA Times article focuses it's critical remarks implicitly on the current democratic South Korean administration which acted to block the erection of any additional THAAD batteries. This occured after a vehemently opposed local reaction and the strong Chinese reaction arose during the installation of the first unit in Seongju, South Korea. By way of comparison, Japanese communities objected to installation of anti ballistic missile systems on land in their own country, and the central government stopped the development and construction of AEGIS ashore facilities in July 2020. (The US claims it is only suspended).

What Americans need to keep in mind, is that South Korea is no longer a military dictatorship which will automatically submit to the dictates of US military commands or "diplomats" concerning South Korean defense policy. Nor is the current representative government merely a conservative successor of the corporate chaebol and militarist interests remaining from the dictatorship period of the 20th Century. This is evident in the democratic Moon adminstration's resistance to extortionate US military cost sharing demands for a greater than 400 percent increase in the ROK contribution. It is also manifest in the ongoing contest over when and whether operational control of the ROK armed forces during wartime will ever be transferred to South Korea.

It should be noted that the LA Times estimate of the damage to the South Korean economic interests as a result of the THAAD incident is placed at the low end of estimates. The US made no effort to mitigate these losses but to the contrary followed with extortionate demands on military cost sharing and extended military commitments beyond the scope of the current alliance to the entire Indo-Pacific. There are also technical questions about the effectiveness of the THAAD system and whether its high altitude detection envelope doesn't in fact leave most of South Korea undefended from North Korean missiles with the Korean military in the position of having to purchase and construct other ABM systems anyway. This suggests that Chinese accusations that the system is actually more likely to be directed against China than North Korea are well founded. What the LA Times article also leaves out is that US defense planners and Pentagon representatives have been promoting the notion of deploying US offensive intermediate range missiles in allied countries in the Asian theater. This discussion revealed the true intention of US planners and their complete disconnect from political and economic realities on the ground, not only in South Korea, but in East Asia generally.