US Special Representative Sung Kim and his deputy, Jung Pak, met with South Korean officials, including nuclear envoy Noh Kyu-duk, after arriving in Seoul early on Monday (Apr 18) for a five-day visit.

“We, of course, share your concerns about the DPRK’s escalatory actions and we will continue to work closely to respond responsibly and decisively to the provocative behaviour,” Kim told Noh as their talks began.

Kim was referring to North Korea as its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

His latest trip was an “indication of our determination and commitment to maintain the closest possible coordination” between the allies on the developments in the North, he added.

Kim’s arrival coincided with the start of a nine-day annual joint military drill by US and South Korean troops.

The exercise consists of “defensive command post training using computer simulation” and will not involve field manoeuvres by troops, South Korea’s joint chiefs of staff said on Sunday.

North Korea has condemned the joint drills as rehearsals for war, and they have been scaled back in recent years amid efforts to engage Pyongyang in diplomacy, and because of COVID-19 restrictions.

On Saturday, North Korea test fired what state media said were missiles involved in delivering tactical nuclear weapons.

The US envoy has said he is open to talks with North Korea at any time and without preconditions, but Pyongyang has so far rebuffed those overtures, accusing Washington of maintaining hostile policies such as sanctions and the military drills.

South Korean media reported that Kim was also expected to meet with the transition team for President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol, who takes office in May.

A spokesperson for the team said there was no meeting confirmed between Yoon and Kim, and could not immediately verify whether the envoy would be meeting other transition officials.

Kim also said at his talks with Noh that Washington looks forward to working closely with Yoon’s team.

Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/us-envoy-vows-decisive-response-north-korea-missile-nuclear-tensions-2631726

The post US envoy vows ‘decisive response’ to North Korea missile, nuclear tensions first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Four years ago, President Donald Trump and Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un were preparing for their first summit. Trump had dropped his “fire and fury” campaign and Kim had suspended intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and nuclear tests. Although skeptics filled the ranks of Washington’s established Korea analysts, for the first time in decades there was a sense of possibility about the bilateral relationship.

The ensuing détente ended the following year with the failure of the Hanoi summit, though Kim maintained his testing moratorium. Last year, he indicated that Pyongyang was planning on ending its forbearance; in January, he unleashed a flurry of short-range launches, capped by a test of long-range missile components. Last month Pyongyang deployed its first ICBM in five years, though the regime apparently misrepresented the missile that was launched. And there is activity at the North’s nuclear site, suggesting a test there is imminent.

Speculation has focused on Kim desiring to force newly elected President Joe Biden to the negotiating table. That was the old model, with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) greeting every new U.S. administration with a reminder that Pyongyang was waiting for concessions. However, few Washington analysts believe that the DPRK is willing to abandon its nuclear capability, irrespective of any promised benefits for doing so.

After all, Kim, like his father and grandfather, appears to be brutally efficient in retaining power and presumably has seen the video of Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi’s ugly demise—after he traded away his nukes and missiles for America’s and Europe’s favor. They proved to be faux friends ready to betray Qaddafi at their first opportunity. Add to that the lesson of Ukraine: give up your nukes in return for an unenforceable security guarantee, and get invaded.

Which offers a darker purpose of the North’s accelerating tests. So far, Kim has indicated no interest in talking with Biden, even though the North’s economy is suffering badly, not only from U.S. and United Nations sanctions but self-imposed, coronavirus pandemic-induced isolation. It appears that Kim has decided that he is unlikely to get the sort of economic relief he was denied at Hanoi, so there is no current reason to negotiate. That is, he is unwilling to agree to Washington’s official objective of comprehensive, verifiable irreversible denuclearization, so why bother talking?

While Kim hasn’t said so explicitly, he appears to be determined to expand and improve his nuclear arsenal sufficiently to eventually force Washington to negotiate on his terms. He certainly has not been conciliatory of late. Earlier this month he explained: “Only when one is equipped with the formidable striking capabilities, overwhelming military power that cannot be stopped by anyone, one can prevent a war, guarantee the security of the country and contain and put under control all threats and blackmails by the imperialists.”

The most obvious target of his vitriol is the United States, of course. However, South Korea, with a new, more hawkish conservative government soon to take power, also has been subject to the North’s ire. In this case, Kim loosed his favorite attack dog, his sister, Kim Yo-jong: “In case [South Korea] opts for military confrontation with us, our nuclear combat force will have to inevitably carry out its duty … a dreadful attack will be launched and the [South Korean] army will have to face a miserable fate little short of total destruction and ruin.” She described the South Korean defense minister as a “scum-like guy” and his comments as the “hysteria of a lunatic.” He had threatened preemptive strikes if the North prepared to fire missiles at the Republic of Korea (ROK).

Relations with the ROK are likely to worsen when Yoon Suk-yeol assumes the presidency. He promised to take a tougher stand toward the North and work more closely with the United States. Although this approach is unlikely to achieve much more than President Moon Jae-in’s variant of the Sunshine Policy—no South Korean administration has ever caused anything more than a temporary improvement in bilateral relations with the DPRK—it is more likely to enrage Pyongyang. After all, taking Yoon at his word suggests that there will be no more craven concessions, such as banning private efforts to spread information to the North’s people.

What to do? The current administration’s strategy looks a bit like the Obama administration’s “strategic patience”—aka, kick the can down the road approach. If Pyongyang was doing no more than insulting Washington and Seoul, that strategy might work. However, the North appears to be moving forward full speed to expand its arsenal and, more important from Washington’s standpoint, extend its reach. In just a few years, the RAND Corporation and Asan Institute figure Pyongyang could have a couple of hundred nukes with ICBMs capable of hitting the U.S. homeland. That would be a game-changer.

Although it is impossible to know Kim’s mind, building up his military while refusing to engage Washington suggests he plans to create an arsenal too large for even the harshest DPRK critic to try to dismantle. Gaining the ability to strike U.S. targets would necessarily and dramatically limit America’s options. Washington’s involvement even in a conventional conflict could trigger nuclear retaliation. Yet despite the strong ROK-U.S. ties, they are not worth risking the destruction of American cities.

Washington cannot look to other nations for answers. Through 2017, the United States could rely on China to at least discourage the North’s most ambitious plans. For a few years, Beijing even approved and enforced a succession of new United Nations sanctions. However, Chinese president Xi Jinping switched course after Washington and Pyongyang announced their summit plans, which raised the possibility of a modus vivendi between the DPRK and United States, leaving the People’s Republic of China (PRC) behind. Xi met Kim for the first time and normalized what had been a cold friendship at best. Xi has since maintained that course.

Despite the slight fillip in Sino-American relations after Biden’s inauguration, these ties seem destined to head downward. Disputes over Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Sea, and more are no closer to resolution. Beijing’s soft support for Russia in the latter’s war on Ukraine is driving another wedge between the United States and PRC. Kyiv’s plight has captured public attention and energized the most hawkish elements of the increasingly reckless Republican Party, which already seemed comfortable with, if not quite determined on, war with both China and Russia.

Moscow also has influence in the DPRK, though Russia long has trailed Beijing in clout. Today the Putin government has no interest in assisting the United States against Pyongyang even if doing so theoretically advanced Russian objectives. Moscow is more interested in causing trouble for America than reducing trouble by North Korea.

Japan was a member of the six-party talks and could play a role, but the status of Japanese kidnapped by North Korean agents decades ago has long deadlocked negotiations with the DPRK. Tokyo’s ties with the South also are difficult, though the incoming ROK administration hopes to improve this relationship. One advantage of improved coordination between the ROK and Japan—both market-oriented democracies seeking peace and stability in Northeast Asia—would be effectively adding Tokyo’s economic and growing military clout to the inter-Korean balance.

Seoul has the most at stake in DPRK relations but has been left with little authority by the United States. Thus, the North treated even the Moon administration, which did its desperate best to conciliate and appease Pyongyang, with contempt after the collapse of the Hanoi summit. Only an American exit, vigorously opposed by South Koreans across the political spectrum, would force the North to treat the ROK more seriously.

Absent such a switch, Washington appears to have no option other than doing more of the same, which has consistently failed over the last three decades. Despite claims that additional sanctions might bring the North to heel, the Kim government has survived both the pre-2017 period of tougher and more seriously enforced penalties as well as almost complete isolation during Covid-19.

The prospect of conventional retaliation, especially against South Korea’s capital of Seoul, was enough to deter prior U.S. administrations, most notably that of Bill Clinton, from striking North Korean nuclear facilities. Despite Trump’s flirtation with military action during his “fire and fury” stage, the North’s presumed possession of two to three score nukes would have magnified the cost of U.S. military action many times. And while the war would have been “over there,” as the ever war-happy Sen. Lindsey Graham indecorously put it, the human costs would have been catastrophic and included plenty of Americans. As Pyongyang continues to work on a panoply of weapons, including hypersonic and submarine-launched missiles, it soon will be able to retaliate “over here” too, making U.S. military action an impossible option.

The United States should prepare for ICBM and nuclear tests, as well as continued development of new and improved weapons. Alas, Washington has no answer. It complains about every test, demonstrating that it is unnerved by the North’s policy. Then the United States incrementally adds sanctions, without effect. And today the North refuses to even discuss denuclearization.

North Korea has oft been said to be the land of only bad options. That is ever more so as the North rapidly moves ahead with missile and nuclear development.

Moreover, a tougher ROK administration might move in unpredictable directions. A popular majority has supported a South Korean nuclear deterrent for years, with seven in ten currently in favor. Further recognition of allied impotence would likely fuel South Korean support for building an ROK bomb.

The Biden administration should consider a significant change in emphasis, from denuclearization to arms control. Since the latter—such as capping the North’s program, reducing the size of its arsenal, imposing proliferation safeguards, forestalling development of some weapons, and more—would move the peninsula toward the former, Washington need not admit that it had abandoned comprehensive and verifiable denuclearization. However, this appears to be the only practical means to forestall or at least limit a nuclear arms race on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea has oft been said to be the land of only bad options. That is ever more so as the North rapidly moves ahead with missile and nuclear development. With the promise of the Trump-Kim summits an increasingly distant memory, the Biden administration needs to find a new approach. And quickly.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of several books, including Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/failure-launch-why-america-can%E2%80%99t-stop-north-korean-missile-tests-201730

The post Failure to Launch: Why America Can’t Stop North Korean Missile Tests first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In a commentary published Thursday by the official Korean Central News Agency, a North Korea Foreign Ministry spokesperson accused U.S. diplomats of arriving at recent working-level talks in Sweden with an “empty hand, thus breaking them off.” The two countries have sought a deal by which North Korea would abandon its nuclear weapons in exchange for peace, security and the lifting of international sanctions, but Pyongyang has accused Washington of maintaining a maximalist position and of continuing to take provocative steps, such as last week’s nuclear-capable Minuteman III ICBM test out of California.

“As recognized by the international community, the United States conducted the recent intercontinental ballistic missile test-fire in a bid to pressure the DPRK. The DPRK can give tit for tat, but we are now exercising a restraint under the judgment that a counteraction is not necessary yet and it is still premature,” the North Korean official’s statement read, using an acronym for North Korea’s official name.

“But there is a limit to our patience and there is no guarantee that all our patience would continue indefinitely,” the official added.

The U.S. test, which the Pentagon said “demonstrates the United States’ nuclear deterrent is robust, flexible, ready and approximately tailored to deter twenty-first-century threats and reassure our allies,” came a day after North Korea tested an SLBM off the country’s east coast. The medium-range weapon, officially called Pukguksong-3, is the farthest-flying and first nuclear-capable missile to be tested by North Korea since its own previous ICBM test nearly two years ago.

That test came during a period of heightened tensions between President Donald Trump and North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un that lasted throughout 2017 but eventually gave in to both inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korea peace talks the following year. Ahead of his debut meetings with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Trump, Kim pledged to suspend nuclear tests and longer-range missile launches.

This self-imposed moratorium silenced North Korea’s missiles for nearly a year and a half, but after Trump and Kim’s second meeting failed to produce an agreement in February, two series of short-range weapons tests were conducted in May. Then too, the U.S. conducted a Minuteman III test at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California shortly after the North Korean launch.

As talks again appeared to stall, the two leaders once again came together, this time alongside Moon, for a historic meeting at the border between the two Koreas, still technically a warzone, in late June. As the U.S. and South Korea pressed ahead with joint military drills, however, North Korea began a new series of short-range tests that would last through September.

The Trump administration has mostly brushed off these displays, as well as last week’s SLBM test, acknowledging them as violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions but not commitments made by Kim to the U.S. leader. In response to European condemnations, North Korean officials have repeatedly stated that the country does not acknowledge U.N.-imposed restrictions on its missile program.

Despite this, six European nations including Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom expressed their “condemnation” toward North Korea’s SLBM test in a joint statement issued after a Security Council meeting. The North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson blasted the sextet in Thursday’s statement, accusing them of remaining silent towards the recent U.S. ICBM launch.

“The UNSC which champions fairness and equity picks fault with the just measure belonging to our right to self-defense while keeping mum about the test-fire of Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile recently conducted by the U.S. This is a serious provocation against the DPRK,” the official said, according to the Korean Central News Agency.

The Europeans had also called for North Korea “to engage in good faith in meaningful negotiations with the United States,” but Pyongyang and Washington exited their Stockholm talks with diverging messages of what transpired behind closed doors.

A graphic shows a broad overview of missile tests carried out by North Korea since 1984, based on data compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative. North Korea has demonstrated more advanced missile technology with a higher success rate in recent years.  Source: Statista

North Korean chief negotiator Kim Myong Gil told reporters that “the negotiations have not fulfilled our expectations and finally broke up” because “the U.S. would not give up their own viewpoint and attitude.” The State Department, however, argued that his comments “do not reflect the content or the spirit of today’s 8 1/2 hour discussion” and argued that the U.S. “brought creative ideas and had good discussions with its DPRK counterparts.”

“The United States and the DPRK will not overcome a legacy of 70 years of war and hostility on the Korean Peninsula through the course of a single Saturday. These are weighty issues, and they require a strong commitment by both countries,” it added. “The United States has that commitment.”

A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson hit back with a statement Sunday, accusing the U.S. side of “spreading a completely ungrounded story that both sides are open to meet after two weeks.” The official said the country had “no intention to hold such sickening negotiations as what happened this time before the U.S. takes a substantial step to make complete and irreversible withdrawal of the hostile policy toward the DPRK.”

“We have already made it clear that if the U.S. again fingers at the old scenario which has nothing to do with new calculation method, the dealings between the DPRK and the U.S. may immediately come to an end,” the official added. “As we have clearly identified the way for solving the problem, the fate of the future DPRK-U.S. dialogue depends on the U.S. attitude, and the end of this year is its deadline.”

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-deal-missile-patience-1464439

The post North Korea tells U.S. to come up with deal or face bigger missile tests: ‘There is a limit to our patience’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post North Korea Warns US to Drop ‘Hostile Policy’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In 2018, Russia’s relations with Western countries severely deteriorated against the backdrop of numerous scandals and sanctions.

The post ‘War Between Russia and US Would Be a Disaster for Humanity’ – Lavrov first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WITH just weeks to go before President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are expected to hold their first-ever summit, Pyongyang has taken aim at the US.

It has criticised what it called “misleading” claims that Trump’s policy of maximum political pressure and sanctions are what drove the North to the negotiating table.

The North’s official news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman warning the claims are a “dangerous attempt” to ruin a budding détente on the Korean Peninsula after Kim’s summit late last month with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

At the summit, Kim agreed to a number of measures aimed at improving North-South ties and indicated he is willing to discuss the denuclearisation of the peninsula, though exactly what that would entail and what conditions the North might require have not yet been explained.

Trump and senior US officials have suggested repeatedly that Washington’s tough policy toward North Korea, along with pressure on its main trading partner China, have played a decisive role in turning around what had been an extremely tense situation.

Donald Trump, left, and Kim Jong Un, right. Picture: APSource:AP

Just last year, as Kim was launching long-range missiles at a record pace and trading vulgar insults with Trump, it would have seemed unthinkable for the topic of denuclearisation to be on the table.

But the North’s statement on Sunday seemed to be aimed at strengthening Kim’s position going into his meeting with Trump. Pyongyang claims Kim himself is the driver of the current situation.

“The US is deliberately provoking the DPRK at the time when the situation on the Korean Peninsula is moving toward peace and reconciliation,” the spokesman was quoted as saying.

North Korea also warned Washington that claiming Pyongyang was forced into talks by US pressure risked returning the peninsula “back to square one”.

DPRK is short for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the North’s formal name.

Kim and Trump are expected to meet later this month or in early June.

Trump has indicated the date and place have been chosen and said he believes the Demilitarized Zone that divides the Koreas might be a good venue. Singapore was also believed to be a potential site.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in cross the military demarcation line to the South side at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea. Picture: APSource:AP

Experts are split over whether Kim’s statement made with Moon at the DMZ marks a unique opening for progress or a rehash of Pyongyang’s longstanding demand for security guarantees.

Sunday’s comments were among the very few the North has made since Trump agreed in March to the meeting.

The spokesman warned the US not to interpret Pyongyang’s willingness to talk as a sign of weakness.

He also criticised Washington for its ongoing “pressure and military threats” and its position that such pressure won’t be eased until North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons completely.

Before Trump meets Kim, Washington is hoping to gain the release of three Korean-Americans accused of anti-state activities.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, right, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in talk at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea. Picture: APSource:AP

Trump hinted the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim was in the offing.

There was no sign of an imminent release on Sunday, though the men had reportedly been moved to the capital.

The White House, meanwhile, has announced a separate meeting between Trump and Moon at the White House on May 22 to “continue their close co-ordination on developments regarding the Korean Peninsula.”

Tensions have run high between the two men over the last year, with both leaders trading threats of war and colourful personal insults that sparked global concern.

In this image released by the White House, then-CIA director Mike Pompeo shakes hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang, during a 2018 trip. Picture: APSource:AP

“We now have a date and we have a location. We’ll be announcing it soon,” Trump told reporters Friday from the White House South Lawn before departing for Dallas. He’s previously said the summit was planned for May or early June. A meeting with Kim seemed an outlandish possibility just a few months ago. But momentum for diplomacy has built this year as the rival Koreas have patched up ties.

But in a dramatic diplomatic turnaround, Kim vowed with Moon to seek denuclearisation and pursue a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War through a peace treaty with Seoul.

Kim also pledged to close its nuclear test site this month, which is said to be in very bad shape, and invited US experts and journalists to verify the move.

According to South Korea, Kim has said he’d be willing to give up his nukes if the United States commits to a formal end to the Korean War and pledges not to attack the North. But his exact demands for relinquishing weapons that his nation spent decades building remains unclear.

Trump said that withdrawing U.S. forces from South Korea is “not on the table.” Some 28,500 U.S. forces are based in the allied nation, a military presence that has been preserved to deter North Korea since the war ended in 1953 without a peace treaty.

“Now I have to tell you, at some point into the future, I would like to save the money,” Trump said later as he prepared to board Air Force One.

“You know we have 32,000 troops there but I think a lot of great things will happen but troops are not on the table. Absolutely.”

The New York Times reported that Trump has asked the Pentagon to prepare options plans for drawing down American troops.

It cited unnamed officials as saying that wasn’t intended to be a bargaining chip with Kim, but did reflect that a prospective peace treaty between the Koreas could diminish the need for U.S. forces in South Korea.

---

Source: http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/north-koreas-unexpected-warning-to-us-before-donald-trump-and-kim-jongun-meet/news-story/9f28608e91d940b3dbb0b529ef69e4ad

[Disclaimer]

The post North Korea’s unexpected warning to US before Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un meet first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved tough new sanctions against North Korea on Friday in response to its latest launch of a ballistic missile that Pyongyang says can reach anywhere on the U.S. mainland. The resolution was drafted by the United States and negotiated with the North’s closest ally, China.

“We define this ‘sanctions resolution’ rigged up by the U.S. and its followers as a grave infringement upon the sovereignty of our Republic, as an act of war violating peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and the region and categorically reject the ‘resolution,'” North Korea’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

The ministry said the sanctions are tantamount to a “complete economic blockade” of North Korea.

“If the U.S. wishes to live safely, it must abandon its hostile policy towards the DPRK and learn to co-exist with the country that has nuclear weapons and should wake up from its pipe dream of our country giving up nuclear weapons which we have developed and completed through all kinds of hardships,” said the statement, carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency.

DPRK is short for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The resolution adopted by the Security Council includes sharply lower limits on North Korea’s refined oil imports, the return home of all North Koreans working overseas within 24 months, and a crackdown on ships smuggling banned items including coal and oil to and from the country.

The Trump administration’s success in achieving the resolution won praise from the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ben Cardin of Maryland. “That was a good move, a major accomplishment,” he said.

Cardin, who spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” said the stepped-up sanctions should be followed by diplomacy aimed at bringing the U.S. and China together on a sustained effort to ease tensions in that region.

But the resolution doesn’t include even harsher measures sought by the Trump administration that would ban all oil imports and freeze international assets of the government and its leader, Kim Jong Un.

The resolution drew criticism from Russia for the short time the Security Council nations had to consider the draft, and last-minute changes to the text. Two of those changes were extending the deadline for North Korean workers to return home from 12 months to 24 months — which Russia said was the minimum needed — and reducing the number of North Koreans being put on the U.N. sanctions blacklist from 19 to 15.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/25/n-korea-says-its-pipe-dream-give-up-nukes/108912506/

The post North Korea says it’s a ‘pipe dream’ that it will give up nukes first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.