The Korean language version of this text has been circulated widely among politicians and activists in the Republic of Korea.
Introduction
Fire and Fury” was not invented by Donald Trump. It is a concept deeply embedded in US military doctrine. It has characterized US military interventions since the end of World War II.What distinguishes Trump from his predecessors in the White House is his political narrative.
We are nonetheless at a dangerous crossroads. Foreign policy miscalculation could lead to the unthinkable. Bear in mind that “MISTAKES” are often what determine the course of World History.
Insanity in US foreign policy, not to mention the fiction that nuclear weapons are an “instrument of peace” as formulated by the Trump administration could lead to the unthinkable. Decision-makers in high office believe in their own propaganda.
A Pre-emptive first strike US nuclear attack against North Korea could potentially precipitate a Third World War.
About-turn in January? President Trump not only confirmed his support for the North-South Pyeongchang inter-Korean dialogue, he also stated his resolve to establish a direct dialogue with Pyongyang. A few weeks later, this peace-making rhetoric was replaced by a new gush of military threats against the DPRK.
From a strategic point of view, the US is intent upon undermining the North-South dialogue. In recent developments, reported by the US media a “powerful military-intelligence faction within the Trump administration is pushing for a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea” to take place during or in the immediate wake of the Winter Olympics.
The operation is labelled by Washington as a “bloody nose” attack consisting of a either a conventional or low yield tactical nuclear weapon attack against North Korean’s missile facilities.
Even if nuclear weapons were not immediately used, the death toll in South Korea alone is estimated in the tens of thousands on the first day, in a conflict that could rapidly draw in nuclear-armed powers such as China and Russia.
Yet, such an act of recklessness and savagery is precisely what is being discussed, debated and prepared in the upper echelons of the White House and the US security-intelligence apparatus. Within top military-foreign policy circles, the advanced nature of the plans is so well known that it is generating fears and opposition. (Peter Symonds, Trump Considers “Bloody Nose” Strike on North Korea, wsws.org, February 6, 2018
The “bloody nose” is a “military concept”
which is based on the notion that tactical nuclear weapons or mini-nukes
are “harmless to civilians”, namely minimal collateral damage.
Meanwhile, the Winter Olympics have been
accompanied by a process of inter-Korean dialogue and negotiation which
is being boycotted by the US. What is at stake is a US led War against Peace.
The “More Usable “Peace-Making” Nuclear Bombs. The Mini-nukes
Trump’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review is categorical in its resolve
against North Korea. While the first strike pre-emptive nuclear doctrine
was first formulated in 2001 under the Bush administration (NPR 2001
adopted by Senate in 2002), the 2018 NPR –which is coupled with a 1.2
trillion nuclear weapons program–, focusses on the development of “more
usable” low yield nuclear weapons on a first strike basis against both
nuclear and non-nuclear states.
B61-12 Tactical Nuclear Bomb
The “more usable” nuclear weapons
pertain to the so-called mini-nukes (B61-11, B61-12) with an explosive
capacity of one third to up to twelve times a Hiroshima bomb. These
“more usable” nukes, i.e. bunker buster bombs with a nuclear warhead,
are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population, because
the explosion is underground” according to “scientific opinion” on
contract the the Pentagon.
It is worth noting that in the wake of the Olympics, large scale joint US-ROK war games are envisaged.
There is a real danger that these
joint war games could evolve towards active warfare, particularly in
view of the pressures exerted within the US military-intelligence
establishment to proceed with the so-called “bloody nose” option.
America’s commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
as contained in the 2018 NPR is a smokescreen. The US has been
threatening the Korean people with nuclear war for sixty seven years.
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula as formulated in the NPR is
directed solely against the DPRK. It does not address the massive
build-up of US nuclear capabilities.
It is worth noting, in this
regard that the DPRK was the only nuclear weapons state which voted in
favor of UN General Assembly resolution L.41 to convene negotiations on a
“legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading
towards their total elimination”.
It is the more useable “peace
making” bunker buster mini-nukes which may be contemplated under the
“bloody nose” option for use against both North Korea and Iran.
Although the threats emanating from the
US military-intelligence pertain to North Korea, under present
circumstances, the Pentagon may choose to test the mini-nuke against a
non-nuclear state.
The US historically has sought
in major military operations to ensure that it’s close allies act on its
behalf. Militarily the US would not act alone against North Korea. In
this regard, what is also at stake is the US-ROK Combined Forces Command (CFC) which puts all South Korean Forces under the command of the Pentagon rather than under the jurisdiction of president Moon.
The refusal of South Korea to engage in
war games must be categorical; the repeal of the US-ROK Combined Forces
Command (CFC) is crucial. Without the ROK’s military engagement, the
chances of the US acting unilaterally are significantly reduced.
The Breakdown in Diplomatic Channels
We recall the circumstances of the Cuban Missile Crisis, fifty-five years ago in October 1962.
What distinguishes October 1962 to today’s realities is that the leaders on both sides, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were accutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation.
In contrast, president Donald Trump is
misinformed regarding the dangers of nuclear war neither does he have
concern in avoiding the massive killings of civilians: “We will have no
choice but to totally destroy North Korea” accusing Kim Jong-un, of being a “rocket man” on “a suicide mission.”
What distinguishes the October 1962 Missile Crisis to Today’s Realities:
- Today’s president Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war.
- The nuclear doctrine was entirely different during the Cold War. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction. Today, tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity (yield) of one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb are categorized by the Pentagon as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”.
- The diplomatic channels have collapsed,
- A 1.2 trillion ++ nuclear weapons program, first launched under Obama, is ongoing. Trump has allocated additional funds to this diabolical project
- Today’s thermonuclear bombs are more than 100 times more powerful and destructive than a Hiroshima bomb. Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons deployed.
The positive aspects are that North and
South have entered into a constructive dialogue coinciding with the
Olympic games. Moreover, president Moon has also entered into meaningful
discussions with China’s president Xi Jinping and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.
Beijing is fully aware that the deployment of the THAAD missiles in
South Korea are largely intended to be used against China rather than
North Korea.
Does the DPRK Constitute a Security Threat to the USA?
What most people in America do not
know –and which is particularly relevant when assessing the alleged
“threats” of the DPRK to World peace– is that North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of US led bombings in the 1950s.
US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s population
was killed off over a three period of intensive bombings:
“After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, General Curtis LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”
Every single family in North Korea has lost a loved one in the course of the Korean War.
The US never apologized for having
killed 30 percent of North Korea’s population. Quite the opposite. The
main thrust of US foreign policy has been to demonize the victims of US
led wars.
There were no war reparations.
The issue of US crimes against the people of Korea was never addressed by the international community.
The atrocities of the Korean War had set the stage for America’s war against the people of Vietnam.
For more than half a century, Washington
has contributed to the political isolation of North Korea. Moreover, US
sponsored sanctions against Pyongyang were intended to destabilize the
country’s economy.
Propaganda has played a key role: The
unspoken victim of US military aggression, the DPRK is portrayed as a
failed war-mongering “Rogue State”, a “State sponsor of terrorism” and a
“threat to World peace”. In the United States and Western Europe these
stylized accusations have become part of a media consensus, which we
dare not question.
The Lie becomes the Truth. North Korea is heralded as a threat. America is not the aggressor but “the victim”.
Historical Context: Nuclear War, Who is the Aggressor?
Confirmed by US military
documents, both the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea have been threatened with nuclear war
for sixty-seven years.
In 1950, Chinese volunteer
forces dispatched by the People’s Republic of China were firmly behind
North Korea against US aggression.
China’s act of solidarity with The
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was carried out barely a
few months after the founding of the PRC on October 1, 1949.
President Harry Truman had contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against both China and North Korea,
specifically as a means to repeal the Chinese Volunteer People’s Army
(VPA) which had been dispatched to fight alongside North Korean forces.
[Chinese Volunteer People’s Army, 中國人民志願軍; Zhōngguó Rénmín Zhìyuàn
Jūn].
It is important to stress that US
military action directed against the DPRK was part of a broader Cold War
military agenda against the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet
Union, the objective of which was ultimately to undermine and destroy
socialism.
It is worth noting in this regard that according to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.
All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets.
The
tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and
the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill
the inhabitants of selected urban areas.
Six atomic bombs were to be used to
destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent,
Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.
The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.
The document outlining this diabolical
military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month
after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and
two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).
The Hiroshima Doctrine” applied to North Korea
US
nuclear doctrine pertaining to Korea was established following the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which were largely
directed against civilians.
The strategic objective of a nuclear attack under the “Hiroshima doctrine” was to trigger a “massive casualty producing event” resulting
in tens of thousands of deaths. The objective was to terrorize an
entire nation, as a means of military conquest. In the words of
President Harry Truman:
“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..”(President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).
[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]
There is a long history of US political
insanity geared towards providing a human face to U.S. crimes against
humanity. In this same radio address on August 9, 1945 president Truman
(image right) concluded that God is on the side 
of America with regards to the use of nuclear weapons and that
of America with regards to the use of nuclear weapons and that“He May guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and His purposes”.
According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes” (emphasis added)
The Truman doctrine emanating from Hiroshima has set the stage for the deployment of US nuclear weapons in South Korea. Barely
a few years after the end of the Korean War, the US initiated its
deployment of nuclear warheads in South Korea. This deployment in
Uijongbu and Anyang-Ni had been envisaged as early as 1956.
It is worth noting that the US decision
to bring nuclear warheads to South Korea was in blatant violation of
Paragraph 13(d) of the 1953 Armistice Agreement which prohibited the
warring factions from introducing new weapons into Korea.
The actual deployment of nuclear
warheads started in January 1958, four and a half years after the end of
the Korean War. Officially the US deployment of nuclear weapons in
South Korea lasted for 33 years. The deployment was targeted against
North Korea as well as China and the Soviet Union.
South Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Concurrent and in coordination with the
US deployment of nuclear warheads in South Korea, the ROK had initiated
its own nuclear weapons program in the early 1970s.
The official story is that the US exerted pressure on Seoul to abandon their nuclear weapons program and “sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in April 1975 before it had produced any fissile material.” (Daniel A. Pinkston, “South Korea’s Nuclear Experiments,” CNS Research Story, 9 November 2004, http://cns.miis.edu.]
The ROK’s nuclear initiative was from
the outset in the early 1970s under the supervision of the US and was
developed as a component part of the US deployment of nuclear weapons,
with a view to threatening North Korea.
While the West in chorus accuses the
DPRK of developing nuclear capabilities, the development of a nuclear
weapons program in South Korea was never an issue. Neither was the ROK
designated as an undeclared nuclear weapons state.
Moreover, while this program was
officially ended in 1978, the US promoted scientific expertise as well
as training of the ROK military in the use of nuclear weapons. And bear
in mind: under the ROK-US CFC agreement, all operational units of the
ROK are under joint command headed by a US General. This means that all
the military facilities and bases established by the Korean military are
de facto joint facilities.
The Planning of Nuclear Attacks against North Korea from the Continental US and from Strategic US Submarines
According to official statements, the US withdrew its nuclear weapons from South Korea in December 1991.
This withdrawal from Korea did not in
any way modify the US threat of nuclear war directed against the DPRK.
On the contrary: it was tied to changes in US military strategy with
regard to the deployment of nuclear warheads. Major North Korean cities
were to be targeted with nuclear warheads from US continental locations
and from US strategic submarines (SSBN) rather than military facilities
in South Korea.
Todays Double standards
While North Korea is said to constitute a
nuclear threat, five non-nuclear states including Belgium, the
Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey have B61-11 tactical nuclear
weapons made in America under national command.
These Five Countries are undeclared nuclear weapons states.
No Trump “Fire and Fury” directed
against Holland or Belgium, which possess 40 nuclear weapons under
national command. Compare that to the DPRK’s 10 nuclear weapons, heralded as a “threat” to the security of the Western World.
The Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, the unspoken victim of US military aggression, has been
incessantly portrayed as a war mongering nation, a menace to the
American Homeland and a “threat to World peace”. These stylized accusations have become part of a media consensus.
The threat of nuclear war does not emanate from the DPRK but from the US and its allies.
These continuous threats and actions of
latent aggression directed against the DPRK should also be understood as
part of the broader US military agenda in East Asia,
directed against China and Russia. In many regards, from a geopolitical
standpoint, the US considers the DPRK as a buffer state. The ultimate
objective is to threaten Russia and China with the support of ROK forces
(under the combined forces command). Needless to say, the reunification
of North and South Korea would weaken US hegemony in North East Asia.
Moreover, Washington’s intent is to draw
South East Asia and the Far East into a protracted military conflict
by creating divisions between China and ASEAN countries, most of which
are the victims of Western colonialism and US military aggression:
Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed against Vietnam,
Cambodia, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia. In a bitter irony, these
countries are now military allies of the United States.
It is important that people across the
land, in the US, Western countries, come to realize that the United
States rather than North Korea constitute a threat to global security.
Towards a Bilateral North-South Peace Agreement
The 1953 Armistice Agreement
What underlies the 1953 Armistice
Agreement is that one of the warring parties, namely the US has
consistently threatened to wage war on the DPRK for more than 60 years.
The US has on countless occasions
violated the Armistice Agreement. It has remained on a war footing.
Casually ignored by the Western media and the international community,
the US has actively deployed nuclear weapons targeted at North Korea for
more than half a century. More recently it has deployed the so-called
THAAD missiles largely directed against China and Russia.
The US is still at war with
North Korea. The armistice agreement signed in July 1953 –which legally
constitutes a “temporary ceasefire” between the warring parties (US,
North Korea and China’s Volunteer Army)– must be rescinded.
The US has not only violated the
armistice agreement, it has consistently refused to enter into peace
negotiations with Pyongyang, with a view to maintaining its military
presence in South Korea as well as shunting a process of normalization
and cooperation between the ROK and the DPRK. At this stage, the
solution is for North and South to negotiate a bilateral peace treaty in
defiance of the US refusal to enter into peace negotiations.
The avenue to achieving the
ROK-DPRK Peace Treaty conducive to reunification requires the Repeal of
the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) and the annulment of
OPCON (Operational Control).
In 2014, the government of
President Park Geun-hye agreed to extend the OPCON (Operational
Control) agreement “until the mid-2020s”. What this
signified is that “in the event of conflict” all ROK forces would be
under the command of a US General appointed by the Pentagon, rather than
under that of the ROK President and Commander in Chief. At present the
US has 600,000 active South Korean Forces under its command. (i.e. the
Commander of United States Forces Korea, (USFK) is also Commander of the
ROK-U.S. CFC).
It goes without saying that national
sovereignty of the ROK cannot reasonably be achieved without the
annulment of the OPCON agreement as well as the ROK – US Combined Forces
Command (CFC) structure. And this is something which President
Moon’s government should envisage. The repeal of the CFC structure is a
sine qua non to reaching peace and reunification.
As we recall, in 1978 a binational Republic of Korea – United States Combined Forces Command (CFC), was created under the presidency of General Park (military dictator and father of impeached president Park Guen-hye). In substance, this was a change in labels in relation to the so-called UN Command and the combined forces structures negotiated in 1950. During the mandate of President Syngman Rhee, all ROK forces were put under the command of General MacArthur:
“Ever since the Korean War, the allies have agreed that the American four-star would be in “Operational Control” (OPCON) of both ROK and US military forces in wartime …. Before 1978, this was accomplished through the United Nations Command. Since then it has been the CFC [US-ROK Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure]. (Brookings Institute)
Moreover, the Command of the US General
under the renegotiated OPCON (2014) remains fully operational inasmuch
as the 1953 Armistice (which legally constitutes a temporary ceasefire)
is not replaced by a peace treaty.
If one of the signatories of
the Armistice refuses to sign a Peace Agreement, what should be
contemplated is the formulation of a comprehensive Bilateral
North-South Peace Agreement, which would de facto lead to rescinding the
1953 armistice.
What should be sought is that the “state
of war” between the US and the DPRK (which prevails under the armistice
agreement) be in a sense “side-tracked” and annulled by the signing of a comprehensive bilateral North-South peace agreement, coupled with cooperation and interchange.
This proposed far-reaching agreement
between Seoul and Pyongyang would assert peace on the Korean peninsula
–failing the signing of a peace agreement between the signatories of the
1953 Armistice agreement.
The legal formulation of this
bilateral entente is crucial. The bilateral arrangement would in effect
bypass Washington’s refusal. It would establish the basis of peace on
the Korean peninsula, without foreign intervention, namely without
Washington dictating its conditions. It would require the concurrent
withdrawal of US troops from the ROK and the repeal of the OPCON
agreement.
Moreover, it should be noted that the
militarization of the ROK under the OPCOM agreement, including the
development of new military bases, is also largely intent upon using the Korean peninsula as a military launchpad threatening both China and Russia. Under OPCON, “in the case of war”, the entire force of the ROK would be mobilized under US command against China or Russia.
Moreover, Washington is intent upon
creating political divisions in East Asia not only between the ROK and
the DPRK but also between North Korea and China, with a view to
ultimately isolating the DPRK.
In a bitter irony, US military facilities in the ROK (including Jeju Island)
are being used to threaten China as part of a process of military
encirclement. Needless to say, permanent peace on the Korean peninsula
as well as in the broader East Asia region as defined under a bilateral
North-South agreement would require the repeal of both the Armistice
agreement as well as OPCOM, including the withdrawal of US troops from
the ROK.
It is important that the bilateral peace
talks between the ROK with DPRK under the helm of President Moon Jae-in
be conducted without the participation or interference of outside
parties. These discussions must address the withdrawal of all US
occupation forces as well as the removal of economic sanctions directed
against North Korea.
The exclusion of US military presence
and the withdrawal of the 28,500 occupation forces should be a sine qua
non requirement of a bilateral ROK-DPRK Peace Treaty.
Reunification and the Road Ahead: There is Only One Korean Nation
There is only one Korean
Nation. Washington opposes reunification because a united Korean Nation
would weaken US hegemony in East Asia.
It would also weaken Japan. In
this regard it is also important to address the bilateral relationship
between the US and Japan, the former colonial power, which is directed
against the reunification project.
Reunification would create a competing
Korean nation state and regional power (with advanced technological and
scientific capabilities) which would assert its sovereignty, establish
trade relations with neighbouring countries (including Russia and China)
without the interference of Washington.
It is worth noting in this regard, that
US foreign policy and military planners have already established their
own scenario of “reunification” predicated on maintaining US occupation
troops in Korea. Similarly, what is envisaged by Washington is a
framework which would enable “foreign investors” to penetrate and
pillage the North Korean economy.
Washington’s objective is
to hinder the process of reunification. Its Plan B would be for the US
to impose the terms of Korea’s reunification. The NeoCons
“Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) published in 2000 had
intimated that in a “post unification scenario”, the number of US troops
(currently at 28,500) would be increased and that US military presence
would be extended to North Korea.
In a reunified Korea, the stated
military mandate of the US garrison would be to implement so-called
“stability operations in North Korea”:
While Korea unification might call for the reduction in American presence on the peninsula and a transformation of U.S force posture in Korea, the changes would really reflect a change in their mission – and changing technological realities – not the termination of their mission. Moreover, in any realistic post-unification scenario, U.S. forces are likely to have some role in stability operations in North Korea. It is premature to speculate on the precise size and composition of a post-unification U.S. presence in Korea, but it is not too early to recognize that the presence of American forces in Korea serves a larger and longer-range strategic purpose. For the present, any reduction in capabilities of the current U.S. garrison on the peninsula would be unwise. If anything, there is a need to bolster them, especially with respect to their ability to defend against missile attacks and to limit the effects of North Korea’s massive artillery capability. In time, or with unification, the structure of these units will change and their manpower levels fluctuate, but U.S. presence in this corner of Asia should continue. 36 (PNAC, Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 18, emphasis added)
Washington’s intentions are crystal clear. They consist in sabotaging the peace process.
Moreover, it should be understood that a US led war against North Korea would engulf the entire Korean nation.
While Washington claims to be defending
South Korea, the US sponsored state of war is directed against both
North and South Korea.
It also threatens the ROK which has been under de facto US military occupation since September 1945.
We are dealing with a diabolical military agenda: The US seeks under the Combined Forces Command to mobilize the forces of South Korea against the Korean Nation.
If a war were to be carried out,
ROK forces under US command would be used against the Korean
people’s reunification project. The annulment of the CDC is therefore
crucial.
Given the geography of the Korean
peninsula, the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea would
inevitably also engulf South Korea. This fact is known and understood by
US military planners.
What has to be emphasized is
that the US and the ROK cannot be “Allies” inasmuch as the US threatens
to wage war on the Korean Nation.
The “real alliance” is that
which unifies and reunites North and South Korea through dialogue
against foreign intrusion and aggression.
The US is in a state of war against the entire Korean Nation. It’s a war against peace. And what this requires is:
The
extension of the bilateral talks between the ROK and the DPRK initiated
on January 9, 2018 with a view to signing a tentative agreement which
nullifies the Armistice agreement of 1953 and sets the terms of a
bilateral “Peace Treaty”.
In turn this agreement would set the stage for the exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of the 28,500 US forces.
Moreover, pursuant to bilateral Peace negotiations, the
ROK-US OPCON agreement which places ROK forces under US command would
be rescinded. All ROK troops would thereafter be brought under national
ROK command.
Bilateral consultations, which are
currently ongoing, should also be undertaken with a view to further
developing economic, technological, cultural and educational cooperation
between the ROK and the DPRK.
Without the US in the background pulling the strings under OPCON, the threat of war would be replaced by dialogue. The first priority, therefore would be to rescind OPCON and the CFC.
Needless to say, the reunification of North and South Korea would weaken US hegemony in North East Asia.
It would also have significant implications with regard to trade and development in North East Asia.
A united Korean Nation of 80
million people, integrating the scientific and technological
capabilities of North and South would inevitably lead to the formation
of a powerful, self-reliant and sovereign regional economic power and
trading nation.
A divided Korea serves the geopolitical and economic interests of the US.
The Olympic Games inter-Korean dialogue have set the Stage for Peace
What is now unfolding in the ROK is public acceptance of the inter-Korean dialogue.
Moreover, public opinion has become
increasingly aware that any action taken by US-ROK forces under the
combined forces command under the command of US General V. Brooks would
constitute an attack against the entire Korean Nation.
ROK forces cannot be mobilized against the Korean people and the Korean Nation. An
awareness campaign should also be launched within the ROK armed
forces: “refuse to fight” and obey the orders of a US General appointed
by Donald Trump? Top commanders within ROK forces should be called upon
to take a stance.
The Olympics as well as the bilateral
North-South negotiations provide an opportunity to eventually repeal the
Combined Forces Command.
What is needed is a mass
movement supportive of a government decision to unilaterally withdraw
all ROK forces from the Combined Forces Command, namely a unilateral
repeal of the CFC (which extends to 2025, signed in 2014, on the orders
of Washington by president Park Geun-hye who was subsequently
impeached).
The objective is to reinstate President Moon as Commander in Chief of ROK forces as a means to achieving peace.
This means that if the US still wants to
attack the DPRK, it will not be able to rely on ROK forces, and
historically the US has always relied on its allies to do the dirty
work.
I think that the US will do its utmost
to sabotage the North-South dialogue, while maintaining the combined
forces command intact.
It is, however, difficult to predict
how this will unfold because we are dealing with US politicians and
military decision-makers who are notoriously “unpredictable”.
*
Text of Michel Chossudovsky’s presentation, Republic of Korea National Assembly, Seoul, South Korea, February 21, 2018
.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2018
