We should remember that north Korea considers the ROK/US Combined Forces Command exercises a provocation while north Korea conducts provocations that includes shelling civilian and military personnel on islands and murdering 46 South Korean sailors when it sank the Cheonan.

north Korean propaganda has pundits, progressives (in the ROK) and the press (and those who sympathize with north Korea) calling for another postponement or even cancellation or a at least a reduction or scaling back of the upcoming exercises.  But we should ask ourselves objectively what do we think we will get from north Korea if we postpone, cancel, or scale back the exercises?  What do these people think the north will do in return?

• Will the north end its provocations to gain political and economic concessions?
• Will it end its winter and summer training cycles?
• Will it withdraw the thousands of artillery and rocket systems along the DMZ?
• Will it cease its infiltration of spies and SOF into the South?
• Will it cease its unification campaign using subversion, coercion, and if necessary force?
• Will it end seeking to split the ROK/US Alliance?
• Will it ends its global illicit activities (counterfeiting, drug trafficking, use of slave labor)?
• Will it end its proliferation activities around the world?
• Will it end its WMD cooperation with Syria and Iran?
• Will it end its human rights violations and crimes against humanity?
• Will it come to the negotiating table?
• Will it pledge to denuclearize?
• Will it denuclearize?

Does anyone think that postponement, cancellation or scaling back of the exercises will result in a reduction in tensions?

The only thing we will see happen if we postpone, cancel, scale back the exercises is that the regime will shift fires to new propaganda targets and continue all of the above.  The only thing we will get in return for postponing the exercises are:

• A reduction in ROK/US military readiness.
• A reduction in ROK/US deterrent capabilities.
• More emboldened north Korean propaganda as it will deem cancellation a success (and it will still focus on the exercises even if we scale it back to a one platoon, one aircraft, and one ship exercise)
• More demands on the ROK/US alliance that will not be reciprocated by the regime.

And of course all of the above is not all inclusive, the north will think of many more ways to benefit from our decision to cancel the exercises.

We should remember that the reason for the exercises is due to the stated and demonstrated threat to the very existence of our blood ally the Republic of Korea.

The bottom line is that we will get nothing in return for postponement or cancellation of the exercises. Some might feel good about doing it in the misguided idea that it will somehow change north Korean behavior and reduce tensions but I believe that they could not be more wrong.

N. Korea issues warning over U.S. military provocations

• english.yonhapnews.co.kr
• View Original
• March 3rd, 2018

SEOUL, March 3 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's representative told the United Nations-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva last month that Pyongyang stands ready to fight back against any military provocation from the United States, the North's official media reported Saturday.

The Korean Central News Agency quoted the North's representative to the U.N. office in Geneva as telling the plenary meeting of the U.N. disarmament conference on Tuesday that it is a legitimate right of a sovereign state to take measures to increase its national defense capability for coping with outside threats.

"(North Korea) was compelled to possess a nuclear deterrent in order to protect its sovereignty and the security of its nation from the harsh hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S. that have persisted for years," the unidentified representative was quoted as saying in English.

"However, the hostile forces led by the U.S. labeled the exercise of this legitimate right as a 'threat to global peace' and misused the voting mechanism of the U.N. Security Council to cook up several 'sanctions resolutions' in an attempt to deprive the DPRK of its self-defensive right." The DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official name.

The North's representative then accused the U.S. of "amassing huge strategic assets in and around the Korean Peninsula, and mulling staging joint military exercises aimed at a pre-emptive nuclear attack on North Korea."

"In order to defend itself from such threats, the DPRK had access to nuclear weapons, treasured sword of justice. As we have stated on numerous occasions, we will consider any type of blockade as an act of war against us, and if the U.S. has indeed the guts to confront us in any 'rough' manner, we will not (hesitate) to respond to it," the representative said.

A Reuters photo taken Feb. 27, 2018, shows Han Tae-song, North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, speaking at the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.Photo by: Yonhap

(END)

Another story of heroism that we rarely read about (see the penultimate paragraph in the excerpt below).  And for those who study resistance the Polish resistance should be a case study.

 But what a chilling statement in the first paragraph in the excerpt below (and Roosevelt's apparent reaction to it).  We should never forget man's capacity for crimes against humanity as there are others around the world even today who have the same capacity as Hitler and the Nazis.

And we should keep in mind the final paragraph in the excerpt below and hope to emulate his character but also that we should remember to listen to and respect those who are on the ground as the man in the arena who bring us knowledge and information upon which we should act.  And lastly I wonder how many other Jan Karskis are at universities throughout the US and the world.  I only wish I had been at Georgetown when he was alive. 

On June 28, Karski was invited to the White House to brief President Roosevelt. In describing the Polish situation, the courier emphasized a key point. “Mr. President, a distinction has to be made. The Germans persecute my people; they deny us education, send us to concentration camps, they want to make us a nation of slaves. With the Jews, it is different. They want to exterminate them.”

Roosevelt offered no comment. “He asked questions, questions, but not a single question about the Jews,” Karski recalled. The president’s final message: “You will tell the leaders that we will win this war! You will tell them that the guilty ones will be punished. Justice and freedom shall prevail. You will tell your nation that they have a friend in this house.”

After making so many visits to top officials in both capitals, Karski’s cover was blown and he remained in the United States. He wrote his Story of A Secret State, which was a huge critical and commercial success—but then this extraordinary account was largely forgotten. He became a highly respected professor of East European and international affairs at Georgetown University, although for many years he did not mention his personal story to his students.

But his story was gradually rediscovered and, as he began discussing it again, he always downplayed the danger of his actions. Speaking of the underground resistance, he wrote: “For the most part, our work was probably less thrilling, less of an adventure, than the work of a carpenter, and wholly devoid of sensational exploits.” That was only the false note in his descriptions of his experiences, born of an instinctive discomfort of portrayals of him as the hero he truly was.

When I visited Karski in his apartment in Chevy Chase, Maryland two years before his death in 2000, he was surrounded by the many awards he had collected from Israel, the United States and Poland. But he was not boastful in any way. In fact, his entire demeanor suggested that he felt that in one critical respect his mission had ended in failure. He had been clearly hurt by the refusal of British and American leaders to believe him all those years ago—and that fact still stung at the end of his life. Despite all the tributes that followed, he never claimed success.

thedailybeast.com

Infiltrated a Ghetto to Expose the Nazis, But Nobody Would Believe Him

• by Andrew Nagorski 
•  Aug. 20, 2016 
•  7 min read 
•  original

Jan Karski was a courier for the Polish underground determined to bring evidence of Nazi inhumanity—but the West wasn’t ready to listen.

In the summer of 1942, Jan Karski, a 28-year-old courier for the Polish underground, was instructed to undertake an extremely dangerous mission: a trip across Nazi-occupied Europe to London, where, with the help of the Polish government-in-exile there, he was to brief top Allied officials about what was happening in his native land. He was then to continue his journey to Washington, where once again he was supposed to meet with the highest officials.

Before his departure, Karski gathered messages from the leaders of various underground organizations that he would convey to the West, including from two leaders of the Jewish resistance who had managed to slip out of the Warsaw ghetto to meet him in a half-ruined house on the outskirts of the city.

Karski was well-suited for his mission. Growing up in the manufacturing city of Lodz, he was a devout Catholic who adhered to his mother’s teachings about respecting those of other faiths, particularly the city’s large Jewish population. Before the war, he had spent time in Germany, Switzerland and England, all part of his preparation for an anticipated diplomatic career. He also did his military service and was called up again on the eve of the war. When the occupation started, he quickly joined the rapidly growing underground.

As Karski recalled both in his powerful book The Story of A Secret State, published in the United States in 1944, and in an interview with me in 1998 when he could reveal some additional details, the Jewish leaders he met before his departure to London came straight to the point. “Hitler has decided to murder all the Jews in Europe,” one of them told him. The other leader started to cry. “We cannot hope that the Poles will help us. Poles can save individuals but they cannot stop the destruction of the Jews. Approach as many people as possible—the English, the Americans, whoever. Tell them that we are dying.”

The other message: The Allies need to scatter leaflets across Germany holding the entire population responsible for this mass murder, telling them they would face wholesale reprisals. They should also publicly execute Germans, “any they can get hold of” anywhere in the world.

Karski replied that such retribution was impossible to imagine, and the demand would horrify everyone. One of the leaders conceded: “We do not dream of it being fulfilled, but nevertheless we demand it,” since this would demonstrate “how helpless we are, how desperate our plight is, how little we stand to gain from an Allied victory as things are now.”

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/20/infiltrated-a-ghetto-to-expose-the-nazis-but-nobody-would-believe-him.html

Video of the Conference: Unification of the Korean Peninsula: Issues and Opportunities

Below are the links to each of the panel videos for the conference described below that was held on 25-26 June 2015.

Day 1 Opening Remarks

Day 1 Panel 1: Human Rights

Day 1 Panel 2: Economy

Day 1 Panel 3: Major Powers

Day 2 Panel 4: Unified Korea

Day 2 Closing Remarks

Unification of the Korean Peninsula:   Issues and Opportunities   Thursday, June 25: 8:45 AM - 6:00 PM Friday, June 26: 9:30 - 12:00 PM Copley Formal Lounge, Copley Hall   Georgetown University, 37th and O St. NW

We cordially invite you to join us for the Annual Conference of the International Council on Korean Studies, "Unification of the Korean Peninsula: Issues and Opportunities." This year's conference is co-hosted by the International Council on Korean Studies and the Georgetown University Center for Security Studies, jointly with the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, the Korea Economic Institute, the One Free Korea Foundation, the Korea Foundation, with generous support from the Philip and Patricia Bilden Asian Security Studies Fund.    The full conference agenda is below; attendeance is free and this event is open to the press and public.  Breakfast will be provided both days as well as a full catered lunch on Thursday, June 25.  Attendees should RSVP no later  than Monday, June 22, 2015.   RSVP June 25, 2015, Thursday 08:15 AM                         Registration Opens 08:45 - 09:00 AM          Opening Remarks Speakers             Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol, Jr., President International Council of Korean Studies and Angelo State University Professor David Maxwell, Associate Director, Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University Mr. Greg Scarlatoiu, Executive Director Committee for Human Rights in North Korea Honorable Donald Manzullo, President Korea Economic Institute of America 09:00 - 11:45 AM          Panel I. Human Rights in North Korea: The Impact on Unification Moderator             Dr. Douglas Streusand, Professor, Marine Corps University Papers                   "Internal Security Issues and Human Rights in North Korea" Mr. Robert Collins, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea "Human Security in North Korea" Mr. Greg Scarlatoiu, Executive Director, HRNK "Post-Unification Human Rights and Humanitarian Concerns" Ms. Roberta Cohen, Brookings Institution Discussants         Ms. Amanda Mortwedt Oh, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea Dr. Terence J. Roehrig, U.S. Naval War College 12:00 - 1:45 PM  Luncheon and Luncheon Speech "Security and Unification Issues on the Korean Peninsula" General John H. Tilelli, USA (Ret.), Co-Chairman Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (U.S. Council) 2:00 - 3:45 PM    Panel II: Future Shape of Korea's Economy Moderator             Dr. Soon Paik, U.S. Department of Labor (Ret.) and Professor, Washington University of Virginia and ICKS Papers  "Korean Unification and the Financial System" Mr. Bradley Babson, US-Korea Institute "Energy and the Environment: Challenges to a Post-Unification Economic Recovery" Mr. Troy Stangarone, Korea Economic Institute of America "DPRK Agriculture - Recent Developments and Prospects after Unification" Dr. W. Randall Ireson, Rural Development Solutions Discussants         Dr. Mark Manyin, Senior Fellow, Congressional Research Service Dr. Hugo Kim, Professor, Washington University of Virginia and ICKS 4:00 - 6:00 PM   Panel III: The Major Powers and Korean Unification Moderator          Dr. Patrick Cronin, Senior Advisor and Senior Director Asia-Pacific Security Program, Center for New American Security Papers  "China and the Korean Peninsula: Why the problems?" Mr. Gordon G. Chang, Forbes.com "Japan's role in Korean Unification" Mr. James R. Kendall, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, USA "The North Korean threat to the USA and Unification" Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol Jr., Angelo State University Discussants           Dr. Andrew Scobell, Senior Fellow, RAND Corporation Washington Dr. Jong O. Ra, Professor, Hollins University and Virginia Tech June 26, 2015, Friday 9:30 - 11:30 AM      Panel IV: Planning for a Unified Korea Moderator             Dr. Jai P. Ryu, President, One Korea Foundation and Professor Emeritus, Loyola University of Maryland Papers "Unification Options and Scenarios" Professor David Maxwell, Georgetown University "Engagement and Coercion: Finding the Right Combination for the DPRK" Dr. Tara O, Pacific Forum CSIS "Government and Security in a Unified Korea" Mr. Sungmin Cho, Georgetown University Discussants         Dr. Bruce Bechtol, Angelo State University Dr. Hang Yul Rhee, Professor, Shepherd University (Retired) 11:45 - 12:00 PM       Closing Remarks Speakers             Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol, Jr., President International Council of Korean Studies and Angelo State University Honorable Donald Manzullo, President Korea Economic Institute of America Mr. Greg Scarlatoiu, Executive Director Committee for Human Rights IN North Korea David Maxwell, Associate Director, Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University Questions?   Contact the Center for Security Studies at securitystudies@georgetown.edu or (202) 687-043(202) 687-0436 Accommodation requests related to a disability should be made by June 17 using the contact information above.  A good faith effort will be made to fulfill requests made after June 17. Visitors to campus may find information on public transportation and the Georgetown University Shuttlehere.  Visitors who prefer to park at Georgetown University are encouraged to use the Southwest Garageon campus.

"Unification Possible Once N. Korea's Human Rights Conditions are Improved"

I was a moderator of the second panel on unification at this conference yesterday.  Following the article are my prepared remarks that I used to introduce and conclude the panel.

"Unification Possible Once N. Korea's Human Rights Conditions are Improved"

Write : 2014-11-14 13:12:43 Update : 2014-11-14 17:09:00

http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_Po_detail.htm?No=106665&id=Po

Anchor: At a forum in Washington on Thursday, a key official of a South Korean presidential advisory group said the two Koreas' unification is only possible once the human rights conditions in North Korea are improved. He stressed that the current Park Geun-hye administration is more determined to address the issue than past governments.
Our Bae Joo-yon has more.

Report: A key official of a South Korean presidential advisory group has stressed that the Park Geun-hye administration’s approach to North Korea’s human rights violations differs from that of previous governments.

Hyun Kyung-dae, the executive vice-chairperson of the National Unification Advisory Council, made the remark Thursday in Washington at the Korea-U.S. forum on peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula.

Noting that previous South Korean governments have been more concerned about straining relations with Pyongyang, Hyung said past administrations have taken a “half-hearted” attitude toward the North’s crimes against humanity.

[Sound bite: Hyun Kyung-dae, executive vice-chairperson of the National Unification Advisory Council (Korean)]
"The mankind's universal value of human rights is distorted by claims that managing the divided Korean Peninsula and improving inter-Korean ties are more important than North Korea's human rights."
 
With about 200 former and incumbent government officials, experts, academics and politicians attending, Hyun said a new resolution on the North’s human rights conditions will soon be passed at the United Nations.

He added that the UN move will serve as a landmark in efforts to improve the North’s human rights conditions.

Citing a survey that found the will of the North Korean people toward unification to be stronger than ever, Hyun said restoring their human rights will lead to a democratic government in the communist nation. He added that the establishment of such a government would then lead to the unification of the two Koreas.

Also at the forum on peaceful unification, U.S. experts on Northeast Asia, including researcher Bruce Klingner of The Heritage Foundation, said there is a need for the U.S. to further turn up its pressure on the North. In particular, the experts voiced the need for the U.S. government to take steps toward individuals, banks and government agencies that are linked to the North’s illegal activities.

Early next month, South Korea’s unification minister as well as members of the government’s unification preparatory committee will visit the U.S. and discuss the North’s human rights issue.
Bae Joo-yon, KBS World Radio News.
 

Talking Points, November 13, 2014, NUAC

1.  Thesis:  The only long term solution to the north Korean nuclear problem and the human rights atrocities being committed by the Kim Family Regime is unification of the Korean peninsula.  Given President Park’s trustpolitikand Dresden Initiative it is time for the US to embrace Korean unification and offer full support to the ROK to achieve unification.  The is the only way to break out of the strategic paralysis of strategic patience.

2.  A proposed strategic end state for the Korean peninsula:

A stable, secure, peaceful, economically vibrant, non-nuclear peninsula, reunified under a liberal constitutional form of government determined by the Korean people.

3.  Four Paths to Unification.

            a.  The ideal path to peaceful reunification is built on respect, reconciliation, reform, rebuilding, and reunification (R5). The operative word here is ideal. Some will immediately discount this as a mere dream; however, such a path can form the basis of a strategy and supporting campaign plan that provide multiple benefits even if peaceful reunification is not achieved in the near-term. 

            b. Bottom-up internal resistance to the regime appears to be growing among parts of North Korea’s population and even within the periphery of the political elite and military. This could be the second path to reunification.  Such resistance should be monitored, assessed, understood, and possibly supported, to include assistance through an unconventional warfare campaign led by the Republic of Korea.

            c. The third path to reunification could be the collapse of the Kim dynasty. Regime collapse is defined as the loss of central governing effectiveness of the regime, combined with the loss of support and coherency of the military and security services.  Although bottom-up internal resistance could lead to regime collapse, the regime’s demise is more likely to result from its inability to support the military and security services.

            d. The fourth, worst case path to reunification is through war. First and foremost, the ROK–U.S. alliance must deter war, but if deterrence fails, then the alliance will win decisively and bring an end to the Kim regime. As in the case of regime collapse, post-conflict stabilization operations can and should be shifted toward the ideal path to reunification.

6.  While the ideal path to reunification is the peaceful one, the other three paths of internal resistance, regime collapse, or war could all result in significant levels of conflict.  However, all the planning and preparation for peaceful reunification that occurs prior to conflict will support post-conflict activities, and as soon as conditions warrant, the Republic of Korea can return to the peaceful path.

4. Conclusion.  The U.S. has practical and moral interests in supporting reunification of the peninsula.  While the past sixty years have shown the importance of deterrent military forces, it should be recognized that the status quo cannot be maintained indefinitely.  Furthermore, only reunification will produce an acceptable security situation in Northeast Asia.

Most importantly, reunification provides a long-term policy and strategy focus that can cure the current strategic paralysis that exists particularly with U.S. policy vis-à-vis North Korea. Both the ROK and U.S. presidents have stated that peaceful reunification is the desired end state for the ROK–U.S. alliance. Whether this is achieved through peaceful means will be up to the Kim regime. However, planning and conducting the necessary preparations as part of a comprehensive strategy can provide the alliance with the flexibility to address and perhaps mitigate the effects of any contingency. Regardless of the contingencies that occur, the alliance can remain focused on the only end state that will end the North’s nuclear program and stop the horrific human rights atrocities and crimes against humanity that have occurred there for the past sixty-plus years.

President Park has provided the opportunity for the alliance to develop a long-term, comprehensive strategy with balance and coherency among ends, ways, and means, coupled with the agility to follow any path to reunification: the ideal or straight line path, the path of internal resistance and regime change, collapse of the Kim family regime, or the worst case of conflict and war.  We cannot predict what will happen in the future, but we can devise a strategy that focuses on achieving the desired alliance end state that will allow the diplomatic and military instruments of power to address any contingency on the path to reunification.

I have one challenge for all policy makers, strategists and planners who focus on Korea security issues:  Ask yourself if the strategy, policy, plan or action is contributing to preparation for Korean unification.  This should be in the forefront of thinking about the Korean peninsula.

North Korea and the Responsibility to Protect

The 5 page report can be downloaded in PDF format at the link below.  This is the first paper I have read that explicitly discusses Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in terms of north Korea.  Excerpt:

This Policy Brief clarifies 

the application of R2P in the case of DPRK, outlining the 

responsibility of the international community in relation 

to the government’s commission of crimes against 

humanity. While the situation remains complex and 

dangerous, the international community, especially the 

UNSC, has not exhausted all options and can no longer 

continue to overlook ongoing mass atrocity crimes in 

DPRK. 

Policy Brief 

18 August 2014

http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/dprk-and-r2p-august-2014-1.pdf

North Korea and the 

Responsibility to Protect

INTRODUCTION 

The human rights and humanitarian situation in the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is dire. 

Crimes against humanity as well as other systematic and 

widespread human rights violations continue to be 

committed by the government under the current 

“Supreme Leader,” Kim Jong-un. Despite testimony 

from defectors and other credible evidence accumulated 

over the last decade, the government has never 

acknowledged the existence of abuses, nor amended its 

repressive policies. Extreme political isolation and 

governmental intransigence continue to hamper further 

investigation and accountability. 

Amid mounting human rights concerns in DPRK, on 21 

March 2013 the United Nations (UN) Human Rights 

Council adopted resolution 22/13, establishing a 

Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to investigate systematic, 

widespread and grave violations of human rights, 

particularly where “these violations may amount to 

crimes against humanity.”1 

The CoI published its findings on 7 February 2014, 

establishing responsibility at the highest level of 

government for ongoing crimes against humanity, 

including “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, 

imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual 

violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and 

gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the 

enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane 

act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.” The 

report noted the government’s failure to uphold its 

primary responsibility to protect its population. 

For nearly a decade UN bodies, including the General 

Assembly, Human Rights Council and Secretariat, have 

expressed concern over grave human rights violations 

and called upon the government to improve the 

situation. While the UN Security Council (UNSC) has 

been engaged on DPRK in relation to nuclear weapons, 

it has never directly addressed ongoing human rights 

abuses. DPRK’s provocative nuclear policies, as well as 

security concerns over the ongoing division of the 

Korean Peninsula as a result of the 1950-1953 Korean 

War, have continued to overshadow human rights 

issues. 

The DPRK government bears the primary Responsibility 

to Protect (R2P) its population from genocide, ethnic 

cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but 

is manifestly failing to do so. This Policy Brief clarifies 

the application of R2P in the case of DPRK, outlining the 

responsibility of the international community in relation 

to the government’s commission of crimes against 

humanity. While the situation remains complex and 

dangerous, the international community, especially the 

UNSC, has not exhausted all options and can no longer 

continue to overlook ongoing mass atrocity crimes in 

DPRK. 

North Korea Infographic on the Gulags/Political Prison Camps

There should be no doubt that north Korea is committing crimes against humanity. 

This is from the Voice of Martyrs' Persecution Blog.

We should also think about the horrendous suffering of these prisoners.  We should consider how mush help these people will need when they are liberated.  The liberating forces should study the operations during WWII when concentration camps were taken by allied forces.  Those who think there is resistance potential in these camps have not read Ted Gurr and do not understand that the prisoners can only think about survival and that it will be a long time before they will be healthy enough to return to some semblance of a normal life.  But the Alliance will have responsibility for the well being of these prisoners in war or after the catastrophic collapse of the Kim Family Regime.

June 16, 2014

North Korea Infographic

http://www.persecutionblog.com/2014/06/north-korea-infographic.html

Using data compiled by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the UN Commission of Inquiry, The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and The Bush Institute at the George W. Bush Presidential Center created this infographic to describe the plight of men, women, and children held captive in North Korea’s political prison camps without charges or trial.

VOM's June newsletter focuses on North Korea. VOM estimates that 30,000 Christians are held in prison camps.

Our hope today is that seeing these facts illustrated in this way will inspire you to pray more fervently for North Korea and for our Christian brothers and sisters there.

Posted by VOM_MediaDev on June 16, 2014 at 12:46 PM in Intercessory Prayer, North Korea | Permalink

Technorati Tags: North Korea

N. Korea says B-52 bombers were behind botched trip by U.S. envoy

Should not be a surprise.  The north does not want to progress too fast in its charm (or peace offensive).  And this reinforces the north's theme that the US is the aggressor and as well as the technique of always finding an excuse for breaking an agreement by blaming others.  I think it is going to play this out with the ROK for awhile.  And as Korea expert Professor Bruce Bechtol always emphasizes the north Korean pattern for strategic action can be summed up in simplest terms this way:

1.       Rhetoric and Brinkmanship
2.       Peace Offensive
3.       Violent Provocation
4.       Denial
5.       Back to step 1

The pattern may be delayed temporarily after step 3 if concessions are provided.  We are now in step 2.

This is a pattern that the North Koreans have followed over time in the Kim Jong-il era – and are likely to do the same under KJU.

I would only add that the north has always been masterful at playing all sides against each other as well.

V/R

Dave

N. Korea says B-52 bombers were behind botched trip by U.S. envoy

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20130901000100320

2013-09-01 01:06

Normal FontLarge Font

   North Korea said Saturday that it had to cancel the planned weekend visit of a special U.S. envoy to the country because of fresh U.S. military provocations.

   Robert King, special envoy on North Korean human rights issues, had planned to begin a two-day visit to the communist nation on Friday to secure the release of Kenneth Bae, a 45-year-old Korean-American man serving a prison term there.

   North Korea said it had agreed to allow King's visit on humanitarian grounds but the U.S. "ruined" the atmosphere of dialogue by flying B-52H strategic bombers over the Korean Peninsula for nuclear bombing drills.

   "The strategic bombers' intrusion into the air over the Korean Peninsula is the most blatant nuclear blackmail against us and a military threat to us," the North's foreign ministry said in an English-language statement carried by the country's Korean Central News Agency.

   "The U.S. thus beclouded the hard-won atmosphere of humanitarian dialogue in a moment." it said.

   South Korea and the U.S. ended a 12-day joint military drill, called Ulchi Freedom Guardian, on Friday. It was not immediately known whether the U.S. had flown the strategic bombers during the drills.

   On Friday, Marie Harf, deputy spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, expressed disappointment over the North's abrupt decision to cancel King's trip, saying that Pyongyang did not provide a clear reason for its decision.

   North Korea claimed in the statement that it had clearly explained to the U.S. why it had canceled King's trip but U.S. officials are spreading "misinformation" about its intentions.

   "It is something surprising that the U.S. is making irrelevant remarks that it was surprised by our action," the North's statement said.

(Continued at the link below)

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20130901000100320