Kim Gets the Dough

North Korea has finally received the $25 million frozen in Macao’s Banco Delta Asia that it “demanded” prior to its following through on the February 13^th agreement to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant.

There should still remain concerns as it is unlikely North Korea will discontinue its illegal activities, such as counterfeiting money and cigarettes, drug traffic and illegal weapons sales, as it has proved so lucrative. It will likely (hopefully) continue to have banking difficulties based upon the U.S. Treasury working group Illicit Activities Initiative, which tracked the North’s illegal activities. It was this investigation that led to the U.S. Treasury finding Macao’s Banco Delta Asia a “primary money laundering concern.” No international banking member wants to be labeled as such, so Kim will have a tough time of things.

The U.N.s IAEA will now meet with North Korea to discuss “a timetable for shutting down the reactor and technical details of monitoring and verification.” The IAEA and the North “have bickered over how much access the agency should have to nuclear facilities and data in the isolated country” ever since the revelation of the North’s illicit nuclear weapons program. So, they will negotiate to discuss, talk, and agree about discussing, talking and agreeing so to speak…make sense? That’s U.N. diplo-speak at its finest.

Further “North Korea said it would use the released money ‘“for improving the standard of people’s living and humanitarian purposes,”’ as the United States demanded.” Uhn huhn…ok.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/7878435710758440935

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Azamatteroprinciple, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Public Eye, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

North Korea Expecting Normal Access to International Banking System

Initially reported as accepting the request:

“Russia has accepted a U.S. request that a Russian bank help end a stalemate over frozen North Korean funds that has halted progress in the North's nuclear disarmament.”

Now is has been agreed upon:

“Russia has agreed to help the United States break the impasse over a long-running banking dispute.”

North Korea agreed during six party talks on February 13^th to dismantle its nuclear programs, in part understanding they would receive $25 million in frozen money. North Korea missed its April 14^th deadline for the first step, which was shutting down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor citing claims it has not received the money. Setting aside the pathetic nature of agreeing to release the funds; North Korea had the means to get the money, but refused to unless the money was transferred; as noted by someone’s Yahoo:

“The communist state insists on a transfer rather than a withdrawal to prove it has regained access to the international banking system.”

All previous reporting of this subject and excepting the paltry sum of it indicated North Korean claims of not closing down the Yongbyon reactor due to its not receiving the $25 million. Now the North’s claim is that they wanted a transfer, which to them is seen as a regaining of access to the international banking system.

Let’s see if it plays out like the following:

• Russia’s private bank agrees to the transaction as long it is not nailed with the penalties of doing business with North Korea.

• North Korea receives its $25 million.

• North Korea does not meet its obligation to close down Yongbyon because it does not have regular access to the international banking system.

Looks like we'll be back to the drawing board.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5178643811322949952

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, On the Horizon, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Of UN Resolutions, Russian Decrees and No Rice for You - North Korea

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a decree against North Korea that is inline with the U.N. resolution 1718, which recalled previous relevant resolutions 825 from 1993; 1540 from 2004 and 1695 from 2006 banning:

“trading with North Korea in materials, goods and technology which could contribute to North Korea's development of weapons of mass destruction-related programs such as those of missiles and nuclear weapons.”

“It also prohibits exports of luxury goods to North Korea and those to the North from third countries by way of Russia or Russian business corporations.”

U.N. resolution 1718 reaffirmed, expressed the gravest concern, expressed profound concern, expressed a firm conviction, deplored, deplored further, condemned, demanded and decided. Perhaps this is why Putin took as long as he did in issuing his presidential decree.

According to first deputy head of the State Duma Leonid Slutsky:

‘”Pyongyang isolated itself from the world community and tries to develop its nuclear program on its own."’

In related news:

“U.S. President George W. Bush admitted during his talks in April with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that the U.S. government failed to fully read North Korean actions over the recent banking impasse.”

The “recent banking impasse” the agreement with North Korea:

“which has many parts, working groups, and rewards for Pyongyang, all spun out of the Six-Party talks in Beijing, and described by Hill, State’s envoy to the talks, as “an excellent plan.” This Saturday (4/15/07) marks the deadline for the initial 60-day phase in which Kim was supposed to have spent the time shutting down his Yongbyon reactor, providing a map of his entire nuclear program and opening wide for inspections.”

Concerns at the time were that North Korea would miss the deadline referred to above; which surprisingly North Korea missed….hmmmm.

Kim and the Gang are all worked up today with the accusation that South Korea has failed to honor “a promise to ship it more rice aid.” The South for its part will only provide the rice as promised, once the North actually gets around to honoring its pledge to start nuclear disarmament.

DeMediacratic Nation agrees with the South Korean stand on the rice shipment and expresses the gravest concern, profound concern, a firm conviction, deplores, deplores further, and last, but not least condemns North Korea for its actions or inactions.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5630742688535937826

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, Azamatterofact, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

North Korean Military Celebrations: Kim & the Gang, Keeping the Funk Alive!

Today Kim and the Gang celebrated the North Korean People’s Army’s 75^th birthday, which as described by the NY Times consisted of:

“Columns of soldiers accompanied by missiles and rockets marched through Pyongyang today under the eyes of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, in a bold display of defiance by a country that has been engaged in a nuclear standoff with the United States.”

The credit for the strong show of support is given, by the North Korean state run media to Kim and his “songun” or “army-first” policy. Songun policy dictates that the army comes first with regard to receipt of food, medical care and any other resources necessary. This policy is attributed to the strong feelings of nationalism in North Korea. This has “also stoked xenophobia among the North Koreans. It stressed a belief that the North Koreans were under attack from the Americans and that the only way out of their economic suffering was to build a strong military.”

“The show of might today illustrated just how hard it will be to wrest nuclear arms from North Korea now that they have become firmly entrenched in North Korean nationalism.”

Former South Korean government strategist, Nam Joo Hong said of Kim:

“Kim Jong-il won’t, and he can’t, give up nuclear weapons. It goes against the very premise of songun.”

Peter Hayes director of the research entity, Nautilus Institute agrees:

“I do not believe that Kim Jong-il will trade off nuclear weapons for mere economic benefits. The main benefit from becoming a self-perceived ‘dignified nuclear state’ that was 5,000 years in the making is political, not economic.”

Adding to these concerns is the fact that:

“North Korea’s armed forces, which have 1.2 million regular soldiers, are the world’s fifth largest in number, and the third largest if its 6 million reserves are added.”

Although a big army and this is no call for an invasion, Saddam Hussein had a rather large and imposing army at one time as well. However, even though their air force rarely flies and tanks rarely roll due to fuel shortages, they do have a large supply of chemical and biological weaponry.

A scant week or so ago, April 14^th to be exact “the first deadline for North Korea to shut down and seal its main facility for manufacturing nuclear weapons fuel expired.”

The deal to shut down the nuclear reactor, excluding the issue of nukes was reached in February and as of today the reactor hums along.

According to North Korea this has stalled because the frozen funds have supposedly not thawed, although “authorities in Macao have since said they would release the funds to their owners, but none of the account holders have come forward.”

So, good news all around considering the “great news of the Iranian agreement to talks,” and now this. Anyone detect a pattern????

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

North Korea No Show on first Deadline

Odd that. North Korea is late or has missed its first deadline in the newest deal to with the U.S. and its multi-lateral negotiating party. According to The NY Times:

“The first deadline for North Korea to shut down and seal its main facility for manufacturing nuclear weapons fuel expired Saturday with no apparent action by the North to fulfill its commitments.”

China has asked the U.S. for patience. Ok, not like we have any other choice right? The Times get a dig in, with (italics mine):

“The inaction leaves President Bush vulnerable to attacks from hawks in his own party, who have argued that it was a mistake to return $25 million in frozen funds to the North Koreans — much of it believed to be from illicit sales of counterfeit currency and missiles — and who doubt that the North Koreans will stop producing bomb fuel as well as give up all of its existing weapons.”

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. But that said, allowing the release of the Kim Jong-il obsessed over, $25 million in frozen accounts strikes me as incredibly stupid. According to Claudia Rosett these funds were part of the estimated $500 million to $1 billion earned per year:

“via illicit deals in narcotics, counterfeit cigarettes, counterfeit U.S. currency and other scams, as well as weapons deals. Some of the players and money trails overlapped and intertwined with targets of two major inter-agency sting operations carried out in the U.S. in 2005, dubbed “Royal Charm” and “Smoking Dragon,” aimed at cleaning up alleged North-Korean-related criminal networks with tentacles reaching into the U.S.”

Former Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton prior to and in anticipation of a missed deadline said:

“One sign of whether we are in trouble is whether the administration will call this a ‘violation’ or use words like “noncompliance.”

Now would one call that prescience or war mongering? How about the common sense of previous actions or statements are a good indicator of future action? Good thing this Bolton guy didn’t bother going through the difficulties inherent in a partisan up or down vote to return to the U.N.; we wouldn’t want anyone like that there would we?

Even South Korea is “threatening” the stopping food aid that had been promised to N.K. to take the steps necessary in shutting down its reactor and nuclear advancement activities. Those mean South Koreans, of all the blustering and “threatening” that has the potential of derailing “business as usual.” Let’s not throw any monkey wrenches into the works that may confuse the great Kim il.

According to a TIME Magazine “piece,” Robert Einhorn who worked for almost 30 years with the State Department on North Korean nukes said:

"The North Koreans don't seem to realize that it is not in their interest to keep undermining and embarrassing those in the Bush Administration who want to find a negotiated solution. In for a penny, in for a pound. The Administration has no choice at this stage but to be patient a few days longer and see if the North Koreans will comply."

No they don’t seem to realize it or perhaps they do, but common sense does point toward waiting a few days to see what happens. Einhorn adds, predicting:

"The Chinese will now be more inclined to come down hard on the North Koreans for further foot-dragging."

Will the Chinese actually come down hard on N.K. or will it just be more diplomatic appearances….I see appearances in the future, if only because “diplomacy” is business as usual.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Anyone else and the 4% for Freedom Solution

Via the NY Times I read this morning that:

A spokesman for the National People’s Congress, Jiang Enzhu said regarding China’s military buildup:

“We must increase our military budget, as it is important to national security. China’s military must modernize. Our overall defenses are weak.”

American and European military analysts add:

“China’s public military budget actually reflects only a fraction of its overall defense spending, and that the real figure is likely to be two to four times higher. Most defense analysts agree that China’s military focus is to build a force that would prevail in any conflict with Taiwan, which it regards as a renegade province, and also to be capable of creating a deterrent to American military intervention.”

Of the Chinese revelation, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said:

“I think the point we would make with respect to military spending and military acquisition of various types would be the point about transparency.”

Setting aside the fact that this remark was made by the deputy in Beijing; I would like us to be a bit more realistic. Mr. Negroponte represents our nation’s diplomatic corps, which with all due respect does not concern itself so much with outcome as much as with process; this to me earns them their name (in a) foggy bottom.

I am not a negotiator or diplomat in my wildest "Walter Mitty" dreams, but asking for more transparency guarantees a little bit more of that which is contingent upon much, much more from us. We give them the farm and they just take the farm, continuing on with business as usual.

Like North Korea, of which John Bolton said this morning in an OpinionJournal piece:

“In any arms-control negotiation, the need for verification is directly correlated to the propensity of the other side to lie, cheat and conceal its undesirable activities.”

In contradiction to that, diplomats will hail any increase in “transparency,” regardless of the actual decrease in its level of opacity. Think 1994’s “Agreed Framework,” then flash to the present. It’s not the Bush administration that caused NK to ignore its obligations under this agreement before the ink was dry, nor was it the administrations fault that it was revealed NK was going about their research and development in secret; this just happened to be the administration in charge during this discovery.

Any naiveté and high hopes aside, diplomats wish to do the very same thing today in regards to NK. Why, because that’s what they do. They revel in and bow down to the intellectual elitism inherent in the “process.” Stick with “process” and you cannot go wrong; you can actually walk away with an extra hop in your step, oblivious to the fact you are dislocating your shoulder as you pat your own back.

Bolton closed with the very good point of questioning where the president’s support will come from. Will it be from “liberal editorialists enthusing about his newfound foreign policy "pragmatism"?” Pragmatism of the kind recognized by “foreign policy experts, administration critics on Capitol Hill and former diplomats.”

Rather than consuming ourselves with only the “diplomatic” need for more “transparency,” how about we not concern ourselves with this too much and ratchet up our “intelligence.” This way we don’t have to ask the Chinese for all their secrets as a “favor” in the interest of “transparency.”

We also might consider the approach as suggested by Jim Talent at The Heritage Foundation; which he refers to as the "4% for Freedom Solution." This solution calls for defense spending at no less than 4% of GDP, regardless of whether we are living a “peaceful” existence as we did in the 1990’s.

Friends, sometimes friends and enemies might take this into consideration when trying to make trouble. At the least, our military would remain the more capable force on the planet. Rather than cut funding and slip back into complacency as we and most others have done in the past after military actions; we would remain up to date and not have to play catch up. This is imperative in this day and age, when “intelligence,” doesn’t appear to know its *ss from a hole in the ground.

Jim Talent believes:

“This program -- called the "4% for Freedom Solution" by the Heritage Foundation -- would send the clearest possible message to America's friends and enemies that, whatever happens in Iraq, America will remain a force to be reckoned with. For some purposes, defense policy is foreign policy. Imagine the impact on China and North Korea, for example, of realizing that the U.S., by using only a small fraction of its economic resources, can guarantee an increased and highly capable naval presence in the Western Pacific for years to come.”

I tend to agree, at the least it is very worthwhile looking into.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1335171937303242522

Whose “Intelligence,” is more Intelligent? The MSM or Governments

I was alerted to the existence of this “piece” by an article written my James S. Robbins at National Review Online, entitled, “Al Qaeda is back?”

The Robbins article questions the nearly unanimous opinion as fact, that the U.S. is losing or fighting a losing battle against the almost omnipotent al Qaeda. The article here, may appear to some as a piece preaching to the choir, but isn’t to anyone that may be interested in weighing the possibilities/points themselves.

That said I’m off in a slightly different direction; that being questioning the “balance,” of the decision(s) made by the msm writers and editorialists as to which “facts” are the appropriate ones for a given article.

Last week I posted regarding an editorial or two, the writers of which appeared to use their own paper as the source for the “facts.” This I believe is part of the msms problem; that being the bubble they inhabit forces them to use their own material, which in turn strengthens the belief that they know these tidbits as fact because they read it in the paper.

On Valentines Day of all times, the NY Times railed on the Bush Administration regarding the tentative agreement with North Korea asking (italics mine):

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

I in turn asked:

"What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The day previous found the editorial board up in arms over the “nameless briefers,” involved in the “supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed.” Yet another instance of lessons not learned; “how little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.”

I wondered which scenario the paper felt would suffice in satisfying its unquenchable need for meat from either the left or right buttock of the president, since the editorial took both sides, which leaves nothing to counter with. Here, they expect conclusiveness:

“And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.”

Yet, a little further down:

“We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council’s order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq.”

Ultimately, I guess neither scenario will satisfy the paper.

The Washington Post had an article that does not allow for any possibility of anything, save for what it sees as obvious, which can be found in my post “The Demuring Pace on Iran and the Possibility Denying Media.” The Post also uses various language and “facts” to “color our news.”

Today, thanks to Mr. Robbins (I had no time for perusing today, except for Robbins and the article in question), I get to note the hypocritical “balance,” of the NY Times again, and only one paragraph is needed as example:

“The intelligence and counterterrorism officials would discuss the classified intelligence only on the condition of anonymity. They would not provide some of the evidence that led them to their assessments, saying that revealing the information would disclose too much about the sources and methods of intelligence collection.”

An awful wordy and redundant post on my part if only to illustrate the obvious (though not to them or are they just dishonest); the msm is not a font of balanced honesty or its most trusted source for information, facts and history is itself. Oh yeah, and the impression one gets that "anonymity" is only acceptable to the "trusted" elite media.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1628584583999462915

The Lesson of N.K., at least the One the Times Learned?

Reading and posting on yesterdays lead editorial in The New York Times, about which Tony Snow referred to as, “what may be the dumbest lead of an editorial I've seen in a long time today,” and concluded myself that, “they have taken very little time considering anything but their own words. The end run for them is that they believe their own supposition.”

After reading today’s lead editorial I am convinced that this is a fact; the board gets its news from the very paper they work for.

This morning’s still has the target of President Bush, but the arrow in their quiver is North Korea.

The board wastes no time firing the quiver rather than the arrow itself:

“It is welcome news that North Korea has agreed to move toward dismantling its nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel oil and international acceptance — including the hope of eventual recognition by the United States. When dealing with Pyongyang (and for that matter, the Bush administration), a lot can slip betwixt the cup and the lip. But if all goes as agreed, the world will be safer.”

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The “Agreed Framework,” should be a lesson in the lengths to which naiveté can be stretched and should be recognized as such considering it was brought about by the “stalwart” efforts of “accomplishment free” former president James Earl Carter and former IAEA head honcho Hans Blix. Oh, and it’s utter failure as well.

Today, following a breakthrough in negotiations with North Korea, we may be looking at the very same type of agreement. “The Paper of Record” considers this the appropriate way to do things. For all the numerous and almost daily instances the Times has castigated the Administration for doing the same things over and over only to end up with the same results, one would think the paper might catch on to this very activity within its own walls. Instead, it feels vindicated in this “breakthrough,” rather than noticing the possibility that this “new framework,” is much like the previous. Might the paper take the president to task for possibly making the same mistake the previous administration made? This would serve the public much better than the Times twisting a “gotcha,” out of thin imaginary air.

In order for the media to do a decent job, it needs to remember facts and history (or at least re-read, rather than re-write it); not its wishful thinking that it is omnipotent. If the MSM did not have such sway in the attitudes and education of the American public, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Unfortunately this is not the case. Fortunately though, if the NYT keeps this up, the “old gray lady,” will wither away and be recognized as the tabloid it has become.

I considered writing a parody of this “editorial,” but cannot improve on the original work in question.

Read it and weep: “The Lesson of North Korea.”
Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6818711978766768637

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

North Korean Politically Incorrect Protest

What are these people thinking? A protest is just not a protest without burning the American flag and/or effigies of President Bush.