Tag Archives: South Korea

America’s Incredible Shrinking Influence, by Ron Paul

Could it be? Could the rest of the world be learning how to ignore the US? We can only hope. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.com:

Just two weeks after President Trump pulled the US from the Iran nuclear agreement, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, issued 12 demands to Iran that could never be satisfied. Pompeo knew his demands would be impossible to meet. They were designed that way. Just like Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia in July, 1914, that led to the beginning of World War I. And just like the impossible demands made of Milosevic in 1999 and of Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and so many other times when Washington wanted war. These impossible demands are tools of war rather than steps toward peace.

Secretary Pompeo raged at Iran. The mainstream news media raged at Iran. Trump raged at Iran. But then a strange thing happened: nothing. The Iranians announced that they remained committed to diplomacy and would continue to uphold their end of the nuclear agreement if the Europeans and other partners were willing to do the same. Iranian and European officials then sought out contacts in defiance of Washington in hopes of preserving mutually-beneficial emerging commercial relations.

Washington responded to the European snub by threatening secondary sanctions on European companies that continued doing business with an Iran that had repeatedly been found in compliance with its end of the bargain. Any independent European relationship with Iran would be punished, Washington threatened. But then, again, very little happened.

Rather than jump on Washington’s bandwagon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made two trips to Russia in May seeking closer ties and a way forward on Iran.

Russia and China were named as our prime enemies in the latest National Security Strategy for the United States, but both countries stand to benefit from the unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran deal. When the French oil company Total got spooked by Washington threats and pulled out of Iran, a Chinese firm eagerly took its place.

It seems the world has grown tired of neocon threats from Washington. Ironically the “communist” Chinese seem to understand better than the US that in capitalism you do not threaten your customers. While the US is threatening and sanctioning and forbidding economic relations, its adversaries overseas are busy reaping the benefits of America’s real isolationism.

To continue reading: America’s Incredible Shrinking Influence

In Korea, We Should Welcome Anything Peaceful, by Lucy Steigerwald

We’re still a long way from a decent Korean agreement, but such an agreement must count as progress if it’s achieved. From Lucy Steigerwald at antiwar.com:

After last week’s momentous meeting of Korean leaders – with North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Un coming to the South – it suddenly seemed like Donald Trump was about ready for a Nobel Peace Prize. Peace on the Korean peninsula and, indeed, an official end to the armisticed Korean War is still far away, but both North and South pledged to work towards it and an end to nuclear wars.

The path to actually get to a substantial, stable destination between the two Koreas is rocky, and there have been countless failures before. Just because there was a shaking of hands doesn’t mean that South Korea wants to risk its prosperity by coming together with their atrophied sibling nation. And just because North Korea swears its nuclear program is halted doesn’t mean it is – they’ve used that line many times before and have reportedly been hoping for nukes since the 1960s.

Two Koreas, Two Trumps

Divided up by the US and the USSR in order to discourage the Japanese from picking it back up as a colony, the bisected Korea conflict quickly turned into the Cold War clash and then the war in 1950. Each country thought it boasted the rightful government. Those in the South lucked out. As unfree as South Korea was and even remains today – there are already crackdowns on anything that might endanger the historic meeting – North Korea is nothing less than a dystopian novel come to life.

And yet, goofy presidential boasts and a fear of nuclear doom over the past months of bloviating suddenly turned into general public incredulity at the moving sight of a North Korean leader coming to the South for the first time since 1960.

To continue reading: In Korea, We Should Welcome Anything Peaceful

Never Underestimate the Power of a Question, by Robert Gore

What if? Why not?

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, has a phrase—mental prisons—for looking and thinking at problems in the same old way. He’s hailed President Trump and Kanye West as escapees. That’s fine as far as it goes, but key to any kind of general escape is recognizing that governments are the wardens.

Hospital administrators and doctors within Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) were little Alfie Evans’ wardens. They determined the 17-month old’s brain condition was terminal and he was in an irreversible vegetative state, and ordered his life support withdrawn. Alfie’s parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, contested the prognosis and the order. That they had to go to a court for permission to seek alternative medical arrangements tells you all you need to know about state-provided medical care. That permission was denied offers a sneak peek into Britain’s impending totalitarianism. Alfie died April 28.

Never underestimate the power of questions, they are the most powerful positive force in the universe. Questions embody curiosity, courage, and a quest for the truth. They initiate investigation, hypotheses, experimentation, new knowledge, and progress. The first questions humanity’s forebears asked began the long, arduous journey to civilization.

MAGA was the Trump acronym; his symbol should have been the question mark. The two are related. The acronym implies America is no longer great, which prompts the obvious question: Why? The source of most of the vitriol directed toward Trump is not so much his answers, which have often been contradicted by his actions. Trump’s transgression is that he dared to question in the first place: immigration policy, foreign military intervention, trade agreements, costs of alliances, corruption, and so on.

Government creates a comfortable status quo for government, string pullers, and beneficiaries. Its prime imperative is to preserve itself. Any change perceived as a threat will be resisted, stifled, and squelched. Questions are inherently threatening, so Trump must be stopped at all costs. Tom Evans and Kate James must not be allowed to challenge their son’s death sentence. Kanye West must be shamed and ostracized.

A deadly deception sells government with terms like “progressive” and “liberal.” Governments are coercion, which is always regressive and illiberal. They are captured by a society’s wealthiest and most powerful and used to cement that group’s status. Crumbs are tossed to the lower rungs, not to improve their station but to make them dependent on the government and ensure their support. Criticism of this arrangement is tolerated only to the extent it can’t be suppressed, but suppression always looms, sometimes blatantly, sometimes in barely perceptible ways.

Scott Adams and other commentators see Kanye West as the start of something dramatically new among blacks. Doing electoral math, some foresee an appreciable downshift in blacks’ usual 90 percent plus support for Democrats, which will, they claim, doom the donkeys. Such triumphalism is misplaced.

It’s not like Kanye West is the first black to question black fealty to Democrats. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have been skewering shibboleths on race for decades.

Indian-American Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary Hillary’s America examined the Democrats’ long history of overt racism. It’s support of slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, Jim Crow, poll taxes, and segregation, and its opposition to anti-lynching and civil and voting rights legislation made the racist south a solidly Democratic bastion for almost a century. Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican for seventy years after the Civil War.

Franklin D. Roosevelt switched them to the Democratic column. The impetus was primarily economic and political, not civil rights. The New Deal helped those most devastated by the Depression, many of whom were black. Politically, Roosevelt offered them a place in the Democratic coalition, although it put them in uneasy alliance with the southern racists. The switch offers insight into blacks unwavering support for Democrats since Roosevelt.

Years ago, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board started referring to the Democratic “plantation” for blacks, and the phrase is still in use, usually by conservative commentators who regard it as a bold badge of political incorrectness. Blacks ignore it and the implicit question: when will they “wake up,” realize their slavery, and flee the plantation? If they’re receiving economic and political benefits from Democrats and governments, paid for in part by taxes coerced from The Wall Street Journal’s editors and conservative commentators, who’s the slaves?

While racism may never be excised entirely, blacks’ legal status and their position vis-a-vis America’s governments have never been better. Many receive substantial economic largesse from the government, including cash, in-kind benefits, and preferences in hiring and contracting. Blacks, almost always Democrats, have been elected to just about every political office in the land, including the presidency. Multi-millionaire West doesn’t need government, but millions of blacks do, and they vote for the party that identifies itself as the party of government.

One can argue that black dependence on the Democrats and government is bad for them; dependence of any kind usually is. Everyone knows overeating can kill you, but we still have an obesity epidemic. Black dependence is a shackle, but it’s durable and won’t be unlocked just because a rich rap star questions it.

Presidents have found shackles easier to break when they don’t involve domestic constituencies. Nixon went to China and Trump is going to the Korean peninsula to negotiate with Kim Jong-Un. While the outcome is uncertain, if Trump eventually gets an agreement by which North Korea denuclearizes, perhaps in exchange for the US withdrawing troops from South Korea—or at least stopping war exercises—and security guarantees from the US and China, it will be a triumph. Moon Jae-in, Kim Jong-Un, and Trump will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump asked what if the stalemated status quo that had held sway on the Korean peninsula since the cessation of hostilities in 1953 could be broken. The usual establishment and media suspects said their nays (see “Media Pundits Horrified by Prospect Between North and South Korea”) but had only the usual palaver when Trump asked why not. It’s a measure of how bizarrely ossified their thinking has become that a peace and nuclear disarmament initiative is mocked, lambasted, and rejected out of hand before negotiations have even begun.

Trump is also questioning the status quo on Iran, pulling the US out of the Iranian Nuclear Agreement. Evidently he wants to negotiate a better deal. The move is thoroughly questionable: his strategy has a lot of moving parts and he’s taking significant risks. Time will tell if things work out, but once again Trump is indisputably disrupting the consensus.

The welfare and warfare state consensus should be questioned and disrupted at every turn. The empire and its bread and circuses have corrupted and bankrupted the nation. Government is an intellectual tar pit that slows, traps, and submerges curiosity and inquiry. Questions are the hallmark of free minds. The state is the natural enemy of free thought. A fight for the latter is a fight against the former. Questions will spark the coming battle. They are weapons of independence and revolution which governments can never wholly suppress. Were they ever to do so, we’d all share Alfie Evans’ fate: hitched to their life support until they decided to kill us.

You Should Be Laughing At Them!

amazon paperback

kindle ebook

Media Pundits Horrified by Prospect of Peace Between North and South Korea, by Adam Johnson

Even peace is a bad thing…if President Trump has anything to do with it. From Adam Johnson at theantimedia.org:

According to a recent poll, 88 percent of the South Korean public viewed the recent peace summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in as a success. In addition, 65 percent of South Koreans trust Kim Jong-un on his pledge to denuclearize, and Moon Jae-in’s approval ratings have shot up to 86 percent. Broadly speaking, recent developments between North and South Korea have been met with widespread optimism and praise from the South Korean public.

Reading US media, one would hardly know any of this. As journalist Tim Shorrock noted last week in The Nation (5/2/18), the response in US media was the polar opposite to how these peace efforts are being received in South Korea. US pundits met the summit with faux-savvy skepticism, a combination of “nothing to see here” cynicism and suspicions that Trump was getting “played.” As Shorrock wrote:

korea

“’Yada, yada, yada,’ the perennial hawk Max Boot wrote disparagingly in the Washington Post about the ‘Korea summit hype,’ adding that ‘there is very little of substance here.’ Similar hot takes were offered by Nicholas Kristof and Nicholas Eberstadt in the New York TimesJennifer Rubin in the Washington PostRobin Wright in the New Yorker, and Michael O’Hanlon in The Hill. Their doubts were repeated and amplified as gospel by the usual critics on cable TV.

“The kicker came on Sunday, April 29, when the Times’ Mark Landler painted the Korean summit as an affront to US national-security interests. Citing every establishment pundit he could find, Landler argued that a resumption of diplomatic ties between the Koreas ‘will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North,’ while making it hard for Trump ‘to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch.’ It was depressing to see such overt cheerleading for US imperial control over Korea in the media.”

To continue reading: Media Pundits Horrified by Prospect of Peace Between North and South Korea

Doug Casey on Peace in the Korean Peninsula

Will North Korea dismantle its nuclear program? Will the US pull its troops out of South Korea? The two answers are interrelated. From Doug Casey at caseyresearch.com:

Justin’s note: An “Era of Peace” has begun.

That’s the news coming out of the Korean Peninsula. Two weeks ago, North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in held a historic peace talk at the North Korea–South Korea border.

It was the first such meeting in 11 years. And many people think it will bring an end to their longtime standoff.

I recently called Doug Casey to figure out what this means for the region and the rest of the world…


Justin: Doug, what do you make of all this?

Doug: Well, it’s most unusual. Since the armistice in 1953, these two countries have been very bellicose. Trump nearly pushed them to the brink of war. Now, the two sides’ governments are lovey-dovey. North Korea and South Korea are friends again.

It’s hard to know what to believe. Frankly, nobody knows. Probably least of all the braindead and self-serving US “intelligence community,” which has missed absolutely every major development since the end of WW2. All anybody knows is what the media’s saying. And that’s unreliable. Reporters mostly parrot government press releases. Most of what gets repeated is conjecture and speculation.

One meme floating around is that the US employed a new super weapon, dubbed the “Rod from God.” It’s basically a tungsten rod, a foot in diameter and 20 feet long, dropped from orbit. It only uses kinetic energy, so there’s no radioactive fallout, but it’s as devastating as a small nuclear explosion. They say it took out the North’s nuclear capability, and scared them to the negotiating table. An interesting possibility, but I doubt it.

There’s absolutely no way to tell what’s really happening. It’s shrouded in guesswork and secrecy.

 

To continue reading: Doug Casey on Peace in the Korean Peninsula

As US Military Effectiveness and Diplomatic Efforts Fade into Irrelevance Many Countries Start Ignoring Washington, by Federico Pieraccini

The US is better at telling other countries what to do or bombing them than negotiating, which may be why successful negotiations are being conducted without the US. From Federico Pieraccini at strategic-culture.org:

Diplomatic work continues in some of the areas with the highest geopolitical tensions in the world. In recent days there have been high-level meetings and contacts between Turkey, Iran and Russia over the situation in Syria; meetings between Modi and Xi Jinping to ease tensions between India and China; and finally, the historic meeting between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un. The common component in all these meetings is the absence of the United States, which may explain the excellent progress that has been seen.

The last seven days have brought a note of optimism to international relations. The meeting between Modi and Xi Jinping in China offered a regional example, confirmed by the words of Wang Yi, member of the State Counsel of the People’s Republic of China:

“Our [India and China] common interests outweigh our differences. The summit will go a long way towards deepening the mutual trust between the two great neighbors. We will make sure that the informal summit will be a complete success and a new milestone in the history of China-India relations”.

Given the tensions in August 2017 in the Himalayan border area between the two countries, the progress achieved in the last nine months bodes well for a further increase in cooperation between the two nations. Bilateral trade stands at around $85 billion a year, with China as India’s largest trading partner. The meeting between Modi and Xi also serves to deepen the already existing framework between the two countries in international organizations like BRICS, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in which they are integral participants. It is imaginable that negotiations on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will be in full swing, with Beijing keen to involve New Delhi more in the project. Such a prospect is particularly helped by three very powerful investment vehicles put in place by Beijing, namely, the New Development Bank (formerly the BRICS Development Bank), the AIIB, and the Silk Road Fund.

To continue reading: As US Military Effectiveness and Diplomatic Efforts Fade into Irrelevance Many Countries Start Ignoring Washington

Nicholas Kristof, Korea, and the Orientalist Temptation, by Justin Raimondo

Just the thought that President Trump, Kim Jong-un, and Moon Jae-in may reach a peace agreement and denuclearize the Korean peninsula is upsetting a lot of Washington and media applecarts. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

Liberals are reeling over Trump’s Korean peace initiative

The stupidity and arrogance of America’s political class is on full display lately, and the White House Correspondent’s “roast” is the least of it (albeit the most visible). The conceit and open identification with Power – i.e., with the very Washington insiders they’re supposed to be guarding against – by our “mainstream” journalists explains why they’re held in such contempt by the public. And what better example of our compromised political class is there than Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist and professional “humanitarian” whose calls to send in the Marines are always clothed in the raiment of altruism. It’s people like Kristof that libertarian author Isabel Paterson warned us against when she wrote about the “humanitarian with a guillotine.”

For I can hardly recall a single war of the recent past that Kristof has not wholeheartedly embraced: while he shied away from jumping on the Iraq war bandwagon, he was gung ho for destroying Syria and making it a safe haven for jihadists: he’s never revisited that stance, nor apologized for it in any way. He’s all for arming the Ukrainian government, which is surely one of the most corrupt in the world, and which has a huge neo-Nazi problem. To top it off, he’s one of the loudest voices urging the US to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and support a crew of jihadist rebels “formerly” associated with al-Qaeda.

Oh, and he’s a leading Trump-hater. It’s only natural: after all, it was precisely because of Trump’s “isolationist” (i.e., pro-peace) stances and his determination to effect a radical change in our globalist foreign policy that rallied Kristof and his Davos crowd buddies to the “Stop Trump” cause. Well, they didn’t stop him, and there’s The Donald now, busting through decades of inertia to forge a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula.

To continue reading: Nicholas Kristof, Korea, and the Orientalist Temptation

Korean Summit: It’s Not About Us, by Justin Raimondo

The real diplomatic story on the Korean Peninsula is this week’s summit between the North and South Korean leaders, not the summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

Yesterday they told us that President Trump was intent on war – he was about to invade Korea¸ unleash “fire and fury,” and millions would die.

Today many of these very same people are telling us that President Trump has been “snookered” by the wily Kim Jong-un, who doesn’t really mean all the pre-summit concessions he’s already made quite publicly. Trump, they say, is about to give away the farm to the North Koreans without getting anything in return.

The only constant note emitted by the Trump-hating chattering classes is their obsessive focus on That Man in the White House. Yet this development actually has little to do with Trump, at least in its origins: indeed, it’s not about us. The Korean summit came out of the election victory of President Moon Jai-in, whose signature campaign issue was reintroduction of the late lamented “Sunshine” policy of rapprochement with the North.

Moon and Kim will meet this week in a preliminary summit leading up to the supposedly bigger event, the Trump-Kim super-summit. Or so the conventional wisdom would have it: after all, isn’t everything in the world really about us?

Well, no, but you’ll have a hard time telling the pundits and policy wonks that. They don’t realize that the real summit is taking place this week in Korea, as the two leaders form a united front against Washington’s War Party – hoping to enlist Trump on their side.

As for the President, he’s optimistic but rightly says “we’ll see if it works out,” even as he lists the concessions already made by the North, which include:

  • A commitment to complete denuclearization
  • A pledge to end nuclear testing
  • A pledge to end ICBM tests.
  • A statement dropping their longtime demand for the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea.

Significantly, the office of President Moon and the North Koreans have jointly declared their intention to formally end the Korean war, presumably by signing a peace treaty, replacing the current armistice.

Prediction: Trump will make a big show of accepting it, and implicitly taking credit for it. But, hey, the Koreans don’t care who gets the credit, nor do they care about the vagaries of American politics except as they affect the ability of the Korean nation to reunite and recover from their national trauma.

To continue reading: Korean Summit: It’s Not About Us

Trump Is The Great Disruptor, by Justin Raimondo

Trump upsets some foreign policy applecarts, but as SLL has said repeatedly, the national security establishment’s real fear of Trump is that he’s got the goods on it and can expose and prosecute all sorts of corruption and criminality. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

Why is the US national security Establishment – the CIA, the FBI, the Dr. Strangeloves – engaged in open warfare against the President? Why, ever since well before Trump’s stunning victory, has the political class done everything in its power to destroy him? We’ve never seen this kind of thing before – at least, not so out in the open. Certainly there have been internal power struggles and plenty of palace intrigue, but this kind of left-right near unanimity, coupled with the brazen activism of the “intelligence community,” is unprecedented. The full institutional power of the Deep State is being deployed to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive – not in some Latin American banana republic but right here in the good ol’ USA.

Why is this happening?

Here is why, and if you click on the link you’ll find the answer:

“President Donald Trump on Wednesday appeared to threaten to withdraw US troops from South Korea if he can’t get a better trade deal with Seoul.

“In a fundraising speech in Missouri, Trump told donors South Korea had become rich but that American politicians never negotiated better deals, according to audio obtained by The Washington Post and confirmed to CNN by an attendee.

“‘We have a very big trade deficit with them, and we protect them,’ Trump said. ‘We lose money on trade, and we lose money on the military. We have right now 32,000 soldiers on the border between North and South Korea. Let’s see what happens,’ Trump said.

“The President went on to argue, ‘Our allies care about themselves. They don’t care about us.’”

The South Korean Finance Minister, Kim Dong-yeon, found this upsetting:

“‘We don’t think it’s ideal to link an economic issue with such an issue [the withdrawal of US troops],’ said Kim, while speaking on South Korean TBS radio.”

This linkage is, indeed, the missing link that is always absent from ostensibly libertarian critiques of Trumpian trade protectionism. Well, yes, it’s quite true that tariffs are taxes, that they hurt consumers – i.e., everyone – and benefit only a few producers at the expense of the rest of us. Yet these libertarian critics never mention that we are also paying for the defense of our trading partners, a gigantic subsidy that is an essential part of the deal we make with our Asian and European protectorates. In exchange for giving, say, South Korea unobstructed access to our markets, Seoul essentially gives up its sovereignty by allowing US soldiers to occupy the country.

To continue reading: Trump Is The Great Disruptor

South Korean Report on Summit Discredits US Elites’ Assumption, by Gareth Porter

Dig enough and you soon discover the news outside the US is radically different from what’s reported within the US. Certainly the US media is either downplaying or ignoring South Korean reports that Kim Jong Un may be ready to give up North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. From Gareth Porter at antiwar.com:

Media coverage of and political reactions to Donald Trump’s announcement of a summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have been based on the assumption that it cannot succeed, because Kim will reject the idea of denuclearization. But the full report by South Korean president Moon Jae-in’s national security adviser on the meeting with Kim last week—covered by South Korea’s Yonhap news agency but not covered in U.S. news media—makes it clear that Kim will present Trump with a plan for complete denuclearization linked to the normalization of relations between the US and North Korea, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

The report by Chung Eui-yong on a dinner hosted by Kim Jong UN for the 10-member South Korean delegation on March 5, said the North Korea leader had affirmed his “commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and said he “would have no reason to possess nuclear weapons should the safety of its regime be guaranteed and military threats against North Korea removed.” Chung reported that Kim expressed his willingness to discuss “ways to realize the denuclearization of the peninsula and normalize [U.S.-DPRK] bilateral ties.”

But in what may be the most important finding in the report, Chung added, “What we must especially pay attention to is the fact that [Kim Jong UN] has clearly stated that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was an instruction of his predecessor and that there has been no change to such an instruction.”

The South Korean national security adviser’s report directly contradicts the firmly held belief among US national security and political elites that Kim Jong UN would never give up the DPRK’s nuclear weapons. As Colin Kahl, former Pentagon official and adviser to Barack Obama, commented in response to the summit announcement, “It Is simply inconceivable that he will accept full denuclearization at this point.”

But Kahl’s dismissal of the possibility of any agreement at the summit assumes, without saying so, a continuation of the steadfast refusal of the Bush and Obama administrations for the United States to offer any incentive to North Korean in the form of a new peace treaty with North Korea and full normalization of diplomatic and economic relations.

To continue reading: South Korean Report on Summit Discredits US Elites’ Assumption