Chung-in Moon on the NLL ;진중권 VS 변희재 - NLL의 진실

Chung-in Moon on the NLL

by Stephan Haggard | November 23rd, 2012 | 07:00 am 

We have been following the flap over the NLL in South Korean politics. Prof. Moon Chung-in, at Yonsei University, attended the 2007 summit with President Roh and was deeply involved in crafting the proposal for a joint fishing zone as a confidence-building measure. He sent us a long email, and a link to his interview in Ohmynews  and to a recent piece in Sisa In and it was too informative not to pass on:

“As you argued, I pointed out that NLL is not a territorial line, a maritime boundary line nor a maritime de-militarized line. Henry Kissinger used the term “Northern Patrol Limit Line.”  But its official term should be “Maritime Non-Aggression Boundary Line” as stipulated in the 1992 Basic Agreement. I also discovered that neither the operational order given by General Clark on August 30, 1953 nor the ROK’s naval operational order 1235 that was based on Clark’s order appear to exist in document form.  They were apparently discarded. I therefore relied on the CIA report (January 1974), Kissinger telegram (Feb. 1975), and another State Dept. document [SH: see our post on these documents, collected by Terence Roehrig.]

Most importantly, the Enforcement Ordinance of Law on Territorial Water (영해법 시행령), which became effective as of September 20, 1978 under Park Chung-hee, did not identify the disputed West Sea as part of ROK territorial waters.  In fact, it did not mention the West Sea at all, perhaps due to US pressure.

In my recollection of the summit, Kim Man-bok (ROK intelligence head) and Kim Yang-gon (head of the Department of United Front, Korea Workers’ Party, his counterpart for the North) negotiated over the issue of a common fishery zone until 3 o’clock in the morning of October 4, but failed to reach an agreement. The South proposed to draw equidistant lines on both sides of the NLL to create a common fishery zone, but the North rejected it by arguing that the southern part of the NLL was in its territorial waters Thus, the Oct. 4th Joint Summit Declaration did not mention the NLL at all [SH: see item 5 of the declaration, reproduced below].  However, both North and South agreed to resume the negotiations on the common fishery zone in the North-South defense ministers’ talk scheduled for November 27-29.

At that time, South Korea’s defense minister, Kim Jang-soo was given the following instructions by the Blue House. First, Kim was instructed to make the same proposal of an equidistant divide of the NLL. Second, if the North did not accept, he was instructed to make an alternative proposal of an equal-area divide along different sections of the NLL in order to forestall security concerns on both sides. If the North accepted the equidistant line proposal, the common fishery zone would make a deeper inroad toward the North’s coastline, especially at the eastern part of the NLL near Yeonpyong island. It was very unlikely that the North would have accepted the proposal. Thus, the Blue House instructed Kim Jang-soo to make another proposal under which the South would make a concession of more area in the eastern part of the NLL near Yeonpyong, while the North would in return make a concession of equal area in the western part of the NLL near Baekryong island where the Northern coastline is rather far away. But Defense Minister Kim derailed the negotiation with the North when his northern counterpart rejected the first proposal.  Thus, what President Roh had in mind was to make the NLL a de facto boundary line by making the adjustments: the equidistant line and equal-area proposals.  It is thus completely unfair for the Saenuri Party to accuse Roh of abandoning the NLL.

Won Se-hun, head of National Intelligence Service, made it clear that his agency has the verbatim transcript of the dialogue between Roh and Kim Jong-il, but cannot reveal its contents because of national security interests.  It seems very strange that the ruling Saenuri is demanding the opening of the record against the opinion of its own intelligence chief.  Such behavior can only be interpreted as a gimmick for the election campaign. Furthermore, Park Geun-hye has been proposing confidence-building measures with the North as a way of normalizing ties. The behavior of her party seems to contradict her own election pledge [SH: see her recent speech.]

President Roh had three agendas in mind in proposing the West Sea Peace and Cooperation Special Zone [again, see item 5 of the joint declaration below]: a common fishery zone; a common peace zone; and the creation of a special economic zone in Haeju port. The first was to transform the conflictual West Sea into the sea of peace through such economic measures as a common fishing zone.  The second was to prevent the loss of young lives of North and South Korea by avoiding military conflicts in the NLL.  The third was to make the NLL a de facto non-aggression boundary line by proposing both equidistant and equal area divide of the NLL. The current debate on the NLL in South Korea seems to be overly politicized, which can severely undermine prospects for inter-Korean rapprochement. Whoever gets elected as leader of South Korea, he or she must resume negotiations with the North on how to resolve military tensions over the NLL so that more young lives will not be sacrificed, not to mention the economic costs. The Faustian bargain should be avoided by ending the current futile politicization of the NLL issue.”

Declaration on the Advancement of South-North Korean Relations,

Peace and Prosperity

October 4, 2007

…

5.  The South and the North have agreed to facilitate, expand, and further develop inter-Korean economic cooperation projects on a continual basis for balanced economic development and co-prosperity on the Korean Peninsula in accordance with the principles of common interests, co-prosperity and mutual aid.

The South and the North reached an agreement on promoting economic cooperation, including investments, pushing forward with the building of infrastructure and the development of natural resources. Given the special nature of inter-Korean cooperative projects, the South and the North have agreed to grant preferential conditions and benefits to those projects.

The South and the North have agreed to create a “special peace and cooperation zone in the West Sea” encompassing Haeju and vicinity in a bid to proactively push ahead with the creation of a joint fishing zone and maritime peace zone, establishment of a special economic zone, utilization of Haeju harbor, passage of civilian vessels via direct routes in Haeju and the joint use of the Han River estuary.

The South and the North have agreed to complete the first-phase construction of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex at an early date and embark on the second-stage development project. The South and the North have agreed to open freight rail services between Munsan and Bongdong and promptly complete various institutional measures, including those related to passage, communication, and customs clearance procedures.

The South and the North have agreed to discuss repairs of the Gaeseong-Sinuiju railroad and the Gaeseong-Pyongyang expressway for their joint use.

The South and the North have agreed to establish cooperative complexes for shipbuilding in Anbyeon and Nampo, while continuing cooperative projects in various areas such as agriculture, health and medical services and environmental protection.

The South and the North have agreed to upgrade the status of the existing Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation Promotion Committee to a Joint Committee for Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation to be headed by deputy prime minister-level officials.

=======

사망유희 01탄 진중권 VS 변희재 - NLL의 진실

Warren Buffett on deficit; Congressional Reform Act of 2012

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! 

The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers

envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on. If not, delete.

You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going, and thanks

Rejection of oil industry delay tactics signals new SEC commitment to transparency rules

Rejection of oil industry delay tactics signals new SEC commitment to transparency rules

http://www.earthrights.org/blog/rejection-oil-industry-delay-tactics-signals-new-sec-commitment-transparency-rules?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EarthRightsInternational+%28EarthRights+International%29

Posted Sun, 2012-11-11 15:33 by Jonathan Kaufman

I was thrilled last Thursday afternoon to hear that the SEC has blocked the oil industry’s first move in its attempt to undermine new transparency requirements.  The American Petroleum Institute (API) and other industry representatives petitioned the SEC to stay new disclosure requirements until the court’s decide on their lawsuit to overturn the law, but the SEC denied the request in no uncertain terms.

We've written in previous posts about Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which directs oil, gas, and mining companies to publish the payments they make to the governments of the countries where they operate.  The SEC issued regulations for Section 1504 in late August, requiring companies to publicly disclose their payments for every project in each country where they operate, with no exceptions.  API sued the SEC, complaining that the law would be costly to comply with and would harm covered oil companies’ ability to compete for business abroad.  They claimed that at least four countries prohibit disclosure and predicted that they might have to withdraw from those countries, incurring tremendous financial losses, rather than violate their laws. (ERI and others had previously refuted each of these claims.)   Oxfam America – represented by ERI and two law firms – is currently defending the rules against API’s challenge to ensure that they go into effect as planned.

API asked the SEC to stay the rules and postpone the compliance date until after the legal challenge is concluded – which could take anywhere from five months to two years.  ERI and its co-counsel forcefully opposed a suspension, but convincing the SEC was an uphill battle.  The Commission had granted industry a suspension in the Business Roundtable litigation – an earlier case in which industry successfully overturned business regulations – and seemed inclined to do the same for API.

In the end, the SEC’s decision turned largely on the question of “irreparable injury.”  API had to show that it would suffer incompensable harms that would be certain, substantial, and imminent if a stay were not granted.  Oxfam argued that the oil companies’ claimed costs of compliance were minuscule compared to their overall assets.  The doomsday scenarios they constructed were completely speculative, since they hadn’t proved that any country actually prohibits disclosures or that they would be forced to withdraw from those countries even if there were a disclosure prohibition law.  And none of the supposed harms were imminent, since companies won’t have to start reporting until March 2014 at the earliest.

The SEC agreed with Oxfam in a well-reasoned, muscular decision.  Thursday’s order concludes that API failed to show that it was likely to succeed in its legal challenge, and that it was unable to demonstrate irreparable injury absent a stay.  Importantly, it firmly rejected API’s claim on foreign disclosure prohibition laws, concluding that the evidence for these laws was “both unpersuasive and vigorously contested by other commentators.”  SEC was also convinced by the fact that the courts have set a brisk schedule for resolving the lawsuit, suggesting that the case may be over long before companies are required to start disclosing any information at all.

The SEC’s decision is significant for a number of reasons.  First, it suggests that the SEC is prepared to fight to defend the rule, which was the product of over two years of hard work by Commission staff and leadership.  Second, it includes the Commission’s strongest yet conclusions on the misleading claims of the oil industry; essentially, the SEC has called API’s bluff and insisted on actual evidence, rather than innuendo.  And finally, it embodies a message to the European Union, which is currently considering similar disclosure rules, that the U.S. is moving ahead and is committed to transparency.  Most observers think that Europe will go at least as far as the U.S. in requiring disclosure, but a stay could have undermined that momentum.

Survivors File U.N. Complaint Against Canada for Failing to Prosecute George W. Bush for Torture - CCR

Survivors File U.N. Complaint Against Canada for Failing to Prosecute George W. Bush for Torture

November 14, 2012, Vancouver and New York— Today, four torture survivors filed a complaint against Canada with the United Nations Committee against Torture for the country’s failure to investigate and prosecute former President George W. Bush during his visit to British Columbia last year.   As a signatory to the Convention against Torture, Canada has an obligation to investigate and prosecute a torture suspect on its soil. This is the first time a complaint concerning torture allegations against a high-level U.S. official has been filed with the U.N. Committee. The Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) and the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the complaint on the men’s behalf.

“Canada has the jurisdiction and the obligation to prosecute a torture suspect present in Canada, including a former head of state, and even one from a powerful country,” said Matt Eisenbrandt, CCIJ’s Legal Director. “Canada’s failure to conduct a criminal investigation and prosecution against Mr. Bush when there was overwhelming evidence against him constitutes a clear violation of its international obligations and its own policy not to be a safe haven for torturers.”

The four men – Hassan bin Attash, Sami el-Hajj, Muhammed Khan Tumani and Murat Kurnaz – found their long quest for justice stymied in October 2011. Canada’s Attorney General refused to conduct a criminal investigation against Mr. Bush, and the Attorney General of British Columbia swiftly intervened to shut down a private criminal prosecution submitted to a provincial court in her jurisdiction during Mr. Bush’s visit. This occurred despite the groups’ submission of a 69-page draft indictment and approximately 4000 pages of evidence against Bush consisting of extensive reports and investigations conducted by multiple U.S. agencies and the United Nations.

The Committee against Torture can require Canada to explain the actions that led to the case being closed without any investigation and can then issue a decision on whether Canada has breached its obligations under the convention.  If the committee finds Canada in violation, it can specify appropriate remedial measures. 

“Through this process, the world can learn whether Canada’s actions were grounded in law or in politics. Canada’s refusal to investigate and prosecute George W. Bush marked a low-point in the ongoing struggle to end impunity for torturers and denied these men the opportunity to achieve some measure of justice,” said Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at CCR and legal representative for the men. “They now call upon the Committee to send a clear message that states must uphold their obligations under the Convention against Torture and cannot allow other factors – including political considerations – to interfere with the commitment to end impunity for torturers.”

Ratified by 153 countries around the world, the U.N. Convention against Torture requires states to investigate alleged torturers present on their soil and submit them for prosecution—or extradite them to another country for prosecution. Canada implemented this provision of the Convention into its domestic criminal code and explicitly authorizes prosecution for torture occurring outside Canadian borders. Canada, along with 55 other countries, allows individuals to file petitions with the U.N. Committee for alleged breaches of the Convention; the United States has not signed on to this provision.

In both Afghanistan and Guantánamo, the four men who submitted the complaint survived inhumane treatment including beatings, being hung from walls or ceilings, sleep, food and water deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures. U.S. officials eventually released Kurnaz after five years, and both el-Hajj, a reporter with Al-Jazeera, and Khan Tumani, 17 at the time of his detention, after approximately seven years, without ever bringing charges against them. Bin Attash, only 16 when he was detained, remains at Guantánamo, though he has never been formally charged with any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, CCIJ and CCR submitted a report about the Bush torture case to the Committee against Torture during an examination of Canada’s compliance with the Convention. The Committee, in its concluding observations, called on the Canadian government to “take all necessary measures with a view to ensuring the exercise of the universal jurisdiction over persons responsible for acts of torture, including foreign perpetrators who are temporarily present in Canada.”

In February 2011, the Center for Constitutional Rights, on behalf of two survivors and supported by CCIJ and other human rights organizations, attempted to initiate criminal proceedings against Bush ahead of a scheduled visit to Switzerland. Bush cancelled the trip after news of the prosecution, and the apparent unwillingness of Swiss authorities to stop it, became known.

Read the complaint at CCR’s case page.

The Conservative Mind - by David Brooks ; the conservative

The Conservative Mind     By DAVID BROOKS   September 24, 2012

When I joined the staff of National Review as a lowly associate in 1984, the magazine, and the conservative movement itself, was a fusion of two different mentalities.

On the one side, there were the economic conservatives. These were people that anybody following contemporary Republican politics would be familiar with. They spent a lot of time worrying about the way government intrudes upon economic liberty. They upheld freedom as their highest political value. They admired risk-takers. They worried that excessive government would create a sclerotic nation with a dependent populace.

But there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.

Because they were conservative, they tended to believe that power should be devolved down to the lower levels of this chain. They believed that people should lead disciplined, orderly lives, but doubted that individuals have the ability to do this alone, unaided by social custom and by God. So they were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.

Recently the blogger Rod Dreher linked to Kirk’s essay, “Ten Conservative Principles,” which gives the flavor of this brand of traditional conservatism. This kind of conservative cherishes custom, believing that the individual is foolish but the species is wise. It is usually best to be guided by precedent.

This conservative believes in prudence on the grounds that society is complicated and it’s generally best to reform it steadily but cautiously. Providence moves slowly but the devil hurries.

The two conservative tendencies lived in tension. But together they embodied a truth that was put into words by the child psychologist John Bowlby, that life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base.

The economic conservatives were in charge of the daring ventures that produced economic growth. The traditionalists were in charge of establishing the secure base — a society in which families are intact, self-discipline is the rule, children are secure and government provides a subtle hand.

Ronald Reagan embodied both sides of this fusion, and George W. Bush tried to recreate it with his compassionate conservatism. But that effort was doomed because in the ensuing years, conservatism changed.

In the polarized political conflict with liberalism, shrinking government has become the organizing conservative principle. Economic conservatives have the money and the institutions. They have taken control. Traditional conservatism has gone into eclipse. These days, speakers at Republican gatherings almost always use the language of market conservatism — getting government off our backs, enhancing economic freedom. Even Mitt Romney, who subscribes to a faith that knows a lot about social capital, relies exclusively on the language of market conservatism.

It’s not so much that today’s Republican politicians reject traditional, one-nation conservatism. They don’t even know it exists. There are few people on the conservative side who’d be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class. There are very few willing to use government to actively intervene in chaotic neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are born out of wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to absurdly low levels.

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country. Republicans have very little to say to Hispanic voters, who often come from cultures that place high value on communal solidarity.

Republicans repeat formulas — government support equals dependency — that make sense according to free-market ideology, but oversimplify the real world. Republicans like Romney often rely on an economic language that seems corporate and alien to people who do not define themselves in economic terms. No wonder Romney has trouble relating.

Some people blame bad campaign managers for Romney’s underperforming campaign, but the problem is deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional conservatism. The Republican Party has abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners, but not as parents, neighbors and citizens.

DPRK daily Nov.2 and Oct. 31

Nov. 2

NLL Nonsense Means Nothing at Home

http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00400&num=9989

Daily NK. 11/2/12 By Park Seong Guk and Kim Da Seul

“There has been never been a North-South agreement of any kind concerning the NLL,” Rodong Shinmun thundered on the morning of the 2nd. “The NLL was drawn unilaterally by the U.S. imperialists, and as such has never been agreed with us. It is recognized by no one.”

North Korea has violated the NLL a total of nine times in the last two months, acts that almost all South Korean experts see as attempting to highlight the perceived illegality of the NLL in advance of the South Korean presidential election on December 19th.

With the exception of fishermen waiting for the crabbing season, most North Korean people do not even know what the NLL is. People living day-to-day have no time to focus on the issue anyway, and the North Korean authorities prefer to ignore it, teaching instead about the aggressive nature of South Korea whenever there is a clash in the region.

Kim, an anonymous defector hailing from Hyesan in Yangkang Province explained, “People who work on the NLL issue know what is going on, but ordinary people don’t have much of an idea. Even people who do know about it don’t think to themselves that ‘those South Koreans have gone and lived there but it is ours and we ought to take it back’.”

The people living in Haeju and the surrounding counties of Ongjin, Kangryeong and Kwail district do at least know about the existence of the NLL, but none of them thinks it is illegal. Fishermen cannot even think of crossing it unless ordered to, because they are kept from it by DPRK Navy patrol vessels.

Choi, a defector who previously served with the DPRK Navy near the NLL agreed, saying, “The fishermen who violated the NLL recently were clearly ordered to do so. Those fishing boats should be seen as disguised naval vessels.”

Before a fisherman can be issued a license to fish he must receive education in which he is specifically warned not to defect and only to fish in approved areas. Before setting sail each vessel’s captain is told where to go and fish. As Choi said, the NLL is also guarded by patrol boats, making it highly unlikely that one vessel would cross it accidentally, much less multiple vessels on multiple occasions.

Park, a defector from close to the NLL in Haeju said, “If I was out fishing and I got near Yeonpyeong Island, the navy patrol boat would warn me not to proceed. If I had crossed the line then it could have been seen as an attempt to defect. For 60 years North Korean fishermen have been living that way, with the NLL acting as a line that can’t be crossed until unification.”

Park continued, “North Korean fishermen do not want inter-Korean military conflict or any heightened tension near the NLL because that could stop them fishing, so they actually really want it to be maintained.”

Simply, North Korean cadres recognize the NLL in its present form, but pursue conflict surrounding it for political reasons. One defector, Choi, explained, “I once spoke to a senior cadre about the NLL, and he said they do acknowledge the NLL as a real maritime military demarcation line. The only time they say they cannot accept it is in propaganda targeting the South.”

“They need to make a fuss about the NLL to flatter their superiors or Kim Jong Eun,” Choi added. “Even when Kim Jong Il was still alive, commanders would complain that soldiers’ lives were being wasted whenever orders to cross the NLL were received.”

NK signs air service deal with UAE

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/11/485_123763.html

The Korea Times. 11/2/12

North Korea has signed an air service deal with the United Arab Emirates in an apparent attempt to provide cheaper transportation means for its overseas workers, an informed source said Friday, though the prospect of launching regular flights between the two nations remains unclear.

The UAE's national aviation authority and its North Korean counterpart signed a provisional air service agreement on Oct. 15, an airline company official based in Dubai told Yonhap News, asking for anonymity.

The deal must be ratified to enter into force.

Saif Al Suwaidi, the director general of the UAE General Civil Aviation Authority, confirmed the signing over the phone, but declined to comment further.

Although the agreement does not limit the number of flights, it is unlikely that major airlines of the two countries will operate regular flights as soon as the deal goes into effect, considering that few North Koreans are allowed to travel outside their communist homeland, the airline company official said. 

North Korea has concluded aviation agreements with 30 nations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa since the 1970s.

The North's state-owned airline, Air Koryo, has 13 offices in seven nations, including China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Canada, Germany and Malaysia, according to Wikipedia. Access to Air Koryo's Web site was not available for an unspecified reason.

The official said the North may have signed the deal aiming for providing cheaper transportation means for its overseas workers in Middle East by signing the deal with the UAE, the transportation and business hub in the Middle East.

Tens of thousands of North Korean are believed to be working overseas under tight monitoring by North Korean officials, in a bid to earn much needed hard currency for the state that has been heavily sanctioned for its nuclear program. (Yonhap)

Oct 31

The South Korean Refugee Act

http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=7961

by Stephan Haggard        | October 31st, 2012

We missed an interesting legal development in South Korea earlier this year: the passage of a Refugee Act (Law No. 11298, signed by President LMB on February 10, entering into force 1 July 2013).

South Korea joined the Refugee Convention in 1992, shortly after entering the UN in 1991.The passing of the Refugee Act is a response to the absence of an adequate legal framework to deal with refugees, which were covered under existing immigration law. The law establishes the procedures governing the application for refugee status, the rights of refugees while being processed, and the procedure within the Ministry of Justice for determining refugee status, including appeals. The Act also outlines the social benefits available to refugees, including social security, social assistance, education and social integration programs. According to sources in South Korea, the new law has been criticized from several sides (lax processing procedures, narrow definition of refugee status, lack of specific protections).

The Act makes no reference to North Korean defectors, which are covered under separate legislation (the Act on the Protection and Settlement Support of Residents Escaping from North Korea). As we noted in an earlier post, South Koreans don’t even talk about North Koreans using the same language as those reserved for refugees from elsewhere. North Korean refugees go through different procedures and have benefits which are different from those accorded refugees under the new act. Once naturalized, they are of course South Korean citizens. While we understand South Korean sensibilities on this score, it might have been worthwhile for the new act to be explicit about how North Koreans are covered.

Refugee Act of the Republic of Korea (Korean Original)

Refugee Act of the Republic of Korea (Unofficial English Translation by UNHCR in South Korea)

(DO- the Korean government views North Korean defectors as having (South) Korean nationality based on article 3 of the constitution) 

Fate of North Korean Orphans Lies in Hands of U.S. Senate

Fate of North Korean Orphans Lies in Hands of U.S. Senate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-poe/fate-of-north-korean-orph_b_2056382.html

11/08/2012

Children, some as young as three years old, scurry into the shadows to elude Chinese authorities who routinely round up and deport North Korean orphans.

American families stand ready to adopt these children, who are among the most vulnerable in the world, and bring them into the fold of their families, but the U.S Senate is standing between them, refusing to move legislation to facilitate adoption.

Although the House of Representatives passed the North Korean Refugee Adoption Act, a critical piece of legislation, on September 11, 2012, which compels the State Department to devise a plan that enables U.S. citizens to adopt orphans from North Korea, the U.S. Senate has failed to act.

Who are these kids?

North Korean orphans are among the most vulnerable children in the world, especially those who have become refugees in neighboring countries like China, Mongolia, Thailand and other Southeast Asia, nations where they have no legal status and are at risk of becoming victims of human trafficking.

These children, known as "stateless orphans," number somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000.

The U.S. State Department has reported that many orphans living in China are the children of North Korean mothers, themselves trafficked. When the mothers are deported back to North Korea, their children are left behind.

Others are orphans who have escaped from North Korea, fleeing starvation and impoverishment to border countries, like China.

How U.S. legislation can help

The legislation that passed the House and is simmering in the Senate would compel the U.S. Secretary of State along with the Department of Homeland Security to devise a plan that would address some of the barriers that currently prevent Americans from adopting from North Korea.

Strained relations between the U.S. and North Korean governments certainly play a part in the current status quo, but so too does the fact that North Korea has failed to ratify the Hague Treaty Convention, an international standard of adoption guidelines designed to protect children that was first adopted in 1993.

The proposed legislation directs the State Department to present tangible solutions to make intercountry adoption possible between the U.S. and North Korea -- even if the latter refuses to sign The Hague -- to help these stateless orphans and other refugee children.

The legislation goes on to call for the State Department to tear down barriers that currently prevent families from adopting orphans from North Korea and other nations that have not signed the Hague.

The Senate's failure to act

Although the U.S House moved quickly to pass the legislation that would set forth a clear path to have these children become eligible for adoption, the U.S. Senate has been true to its reputation as the cooling saucer of the House's hot tea refusing to move the bill for a vote.

Back in February of 2011, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), together with two cosponsors, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) introduced bipartisan legislation but although it has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations no action has been taken.

There is urgency to this legislation. It tasks the State Department with issuing a report with recommendations to Congress within 180 days of its enactment. If the Senate votes favorably in the coming weeks, Americans may be permitted to open their homes to these orphans in 2013.

This is no small matter. The fate of thousands of children rest upon the U.S. Senate getting this right.

=========================

Fiction of the North Korean Refugee Orphan

http://www.kpolicy.org/documents/interviews-opeds/120924christinehongfictionofthenorthkoreanrefugeeorphan.html

Cyber-Warfare: The North Korean response

http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=8031

Cyber-Warfare: The North Korean response

by Marcus Noland           | November 10th, 2012

We offer the following from the 11 October 2012 (we won’t bother to translate into juche-time) Minju Joson, a North Korean government newspaper, without editorial comment:

The United States Raised the Curtain on a Cyber Armament Race

“The United States is going into full swing on cyber armament development lately. According to news reports, the US Air Force command declared the opening of bids for procurement of harmful programs containing malignant viruses for the purpose of disrupting and destroying enemy computer networks and control centers. The notice on the bidding emphasizes the US Air Force’s quest for capabilities to infect and disable enemy work systems, servers, and other network structures by cyberattacks and establish systems of temporary cyberspace control, and it includes the development of programs for inflicting preemptive strikes against an enemy. The US Department of Defense expressed its willingness to spend $10 million in the initial stages of plan implementation.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency declared the opening of bids for the development of surveillance programs to monitor the state of security of enemy military infrastructure targets countering US cyber attacks. Some $110 million will reportedly be spent on the development of those programs.

Military experts see this plan announced by the United States as a first step in a cyber armament development race.

Until now, the United States has categorically denied its cyber attack weapon development, saying US military action on the cyber front will be strictly of a defensive nature.

However, in reality, the United States has been actively pursuing cyber attack weapon development projects, while overtly spurring cyber warfare preparations.

Late last year, the US Congress approved cyber attack weapon development by the United States Cyber Command and allocated huge amounts of money to this project.

According to what US media reported, the US Department of Defense has already started full-scale development of cyber attack weapons that can be used in a real war. This program, codenamed “PLAN-X,” calls for the development of digital maps showing the locations of tens of billions of computers worldwide, let alone the disablement of enemy military communications and radar. It is an initiative for rendering enemy military computers useless all at once in case of an emergency.

Not only munitions companies but also private universities and even electronic game device makers will reportedly participate in this cyber attack weapon development, which will be handled by the US Department of Defense at the cost of more than $1 billion over five years.

In short, the United States is seeing the Internet space as a new military arena and seeking to gain hegemony in this area.

As known, malignant viruses are spreading widely through computer networks worldwide today, leading to destruction and leakage of numerous classified data and paralyzing electronic work systems.

The problem is that the United States and other Western countries are exploiting this phenomenon as an excuse for more blatant intelligence warfare, interference in internal affairs, and aggression maneuvers against other countries.

Last year, when damage was reported in a cyber attack on the United States, the US Department of Defense automatically blamed it on an outside cyber attack and came out actively advocating the need for cyber armament development as a counter. It went so far as to announce something called “cyber strategy” that treats a cyber attack launched from outside as an act of war and calls for a reprisal involving use of force.

Although, from a technical standpoint, it is possible to identify the outside network address launching a cyber attack, it is difficult to find out who is responsible for the attack launched from computers, experts say. As long as the attacker’s identity is not accurately established, a military reprisal measure by anyone cannot be justified.

Nevertheless, the United States is blabbering that an outside cyber attack will automatically constitute a “threat,” which is considered an “act of war” that requires a reprisal at tack, and its purpose lies in the justification of its cyber armament development and its bid to launch preemptive strikes at any given time against countries it does not like by imposing cyber attack blames.

Now, the United States continues to perpetrate cyberterrorism crimes against anti-imperialist, pro-independence countries by throwing allegations against other countries under the pretext of so-called “national security.”

In an article exposing and denouncing the United States’ cyber warfare maneuvers against Cuba, the country’s newspaper Granma divulged that the United States secretly introduced satellite antennas and other equipment into Cuba, installed secret Internet access points, and spread groundless rumors through them, thereby creating social instability and seeking to cause

Cuba to disintegrate from within. The newspaper also divulged that the United States is ratcheting up anti-Cuba maneuvers by mobilizing all schemes by introducing the latest programs into the country, creating a network outside government controls, and establishing a system of sending and receiving digital documents.

It is an already well-known fact that the United States developed a virus named “Stuxnet” to scuttle Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities and sabotaged normal nuclear activities by launching cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Because of the United States’ such cyberterrorism crimes, information technology means, which should otherwise be used to contribute to socio-economic progress and humankind’s civilization development, are exploited for “intelligence warfare,” aggravating confrontation and friction among countries.

Currently, there is no international legal framework to monitor and control cybercrimes and provide fair and accurate assessments of cybercrimes. That is why countries such as Russia are calling for the creation of a new protocol assuming the nature of international law against cybercrimes.

Foreign media expressing strong concern over the United States’ increasingly intensifying cyber armament development are sounding alarm bells, saying, “The United States has effectively raised the curtain on a cyber armament race itself. The consequences of such action cannot be anticipated.”

Now, many countries around the world are denouncing the United States as the main cybercrime culprit and strongly urging a ban on the development and use of cyber weapons.”