Were Assange to give up his legal battle and voluntarily go to the U.S. it would achieve two things for Washington:
1). remove the chance of a European Court of Human Rights injunction stopping his extradition should the High Court in London reject his last appeal; and
2). it would give the U.S. an opportunity to “change its mind” once Assange was in its clutches inside the Virginia federal courthouse.
Top U.S. officials are speaking at cross purposes when it comes to Julian Assange. What is really going on? asks Joe Lauria.
It was a little more than perplexing. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, on Australian soil, left no doubt about how his government feels about one of Australia’s most prominent citizens.
“I understand the concerns and views of Australians,” Blinken said in Brisbane on July 31 with the Australian foreign minister at his side. “I think it’s very important that our friends here understand our concerns about this matter.” He went on:
“What our Department of Justice has already said repeatedly, publicly, is this: Mr. Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country. So I say that only because just as we understand sensitivities here, it’s important that our friends understand sensitivities in the United States.”
In other words, when it comes to Julian Assange, the U.S. elite cares little for what Australians have to say. There are more impolite ways to describe Blinken’s response. Upwards of 88 percent of Australians and both parties in the Australian government have told Washington to free the man. And Blinken essentially told them to stuff it. The U.S. won’t drop the case.
A few days before Blinken spoke, Caroline Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to Australia and daughter of slain President John F. Kennedy, was also dismissive of Australians’ concerns, telling Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio:
“I met with Parliamentary supporters of Julian Assange and I’ve listened to their concerns and I understand that this has been raised at the highest levels of our government, but it is an ongoing legal case, so the Department of Justice is really in charge but I’m sure that for Julian Assange it means a lot that he has this kind of support but we’re just going to have to wait to see what happens.”
Asked why she met with the parliamentarians at all, she said: “Well, it’s an important issue, it has, as I’ve said, been raised at the highest levels and I wanted to hear directly from them about their concerns to make sure that we all understood where each other was coming from and I thought it was a very useful conversation.”
Asked whether her meeting with the MPs had shifted her thinking on the Assange case, Kennedy said bluntly: “Not really.” She added that her “personal thinking isn’t really relevant here.”
Blowback
Australia has too often behaved as a doormat to the United States, to the point where Australia is threatening its own security by going along with an aggressive U.S. policy towards China, which poses no threat to Australia.
But this time, Blinken got an earful. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that he wanted the Assange case to be dropped. Certain members of Parliament brusquely gave it back to Blinken.
Assange was “not the villain … and if the US wasn’t obsessed with revenge it would drop the extradition charge as soon as possible,” Independent MP Andrew Wilkie toldThe Guardian‘s Australian edition.
“Antony Blinken’s allegation that Julian Assange risked very serious harm to US national security is patent nonsense,” said Wilkie said.
“Mr Blinken would be well aware of the inquiries in both the US and Australia which found that the relevant WikiLeaks disclosures did not result in harm to anyone,” the MP said. “The only deadly behaviour was by US forces … exposed by WikiLeaks, like the Apache crew who gunned down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists” in the infamous Collateral Murder video.
As was shown conclusively by defense witnesses in his September 2020 extradition hearing in London, Assange worked assiduously to redact names of U.S. informants before WikiLeaks publications on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. U.S. Gen. Robert Carr testified at the court martial of WikiLeaks‘ source, Chelsea Manning, that no one was harmed by the material’s publication.
Instead, Assange faces 175 years in a U.S. dungeon on charges of violating the Espionage Act, not for stealing U.S. classified material, but for the First Amendment-protected publication of it.
Labor MP Julian Hill, also part of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group, told The Guardian he had “a fundamentally different view of the substance of the matter than secretary Blinken expressed. But I appreciate that at least his remarks are candid and direct.”
“In the same vein, I would say back to the United States: at the very least, take Julian Assange’s health issues seriously and go into court in the United Kingdom and get him the hell out of a maximum security prison where he’s at risk of dying without medical care if he has another stroke,” Hill said.
Damage Control
The fierce Australian reaction to both Blinken and Kennedy’s remarks appears to have taken Washington by surprise, given how accustomed to Canberra’s supine behavior the U.S. has become. Just two weeks after Blinken’s remarks, Kennedy tried to soften the blow by muddying Blinken’s clear waters.
She told The Sydney Morning Herald in a front-page interview published on Aug. 14 that the United States was now, despite Blinken’s unequivocal words, suddenly open to a plea agreement that could free Assange, allowing him to serve a shortened sentence for a lesser crime in his home country.
The newspaper said there could be a “David Hicks-style plea bargain,” a so-called Alford Plea, in which Assange would continue to state his innocence while accepting a lesser charge that would allow him to serve additional time in Australia. The four years Assange has already served on remand at London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison could perhaps be taken into account.
Kennedy said a decision on such a plea deal was up to the U.S. Justice Department. “So it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think that there absolutely could be a resolution,” she told the newspaper.
Kennedy acknowledged Blinken’s harsh comments. “But there is a way to resolve it,” she said. “You can read the [newspapers] just like I can.” It is not quite clear what in the newspapers she was reading.
Blinken is Kennedy’s boss. There is little chance she had spoken out of turn. Blinken allowed her to put out the story that the U.S. is interested in a plea bargain with Assange. But why?
First, the harsh reaction in Australia to Blinken’s words probably had something to do with it. If it was up to the U.S. Justice Department alone to handle the prosecution of Assange, as Kennedy says, why was the Secretary of State saying anything about it at all? Blinken appears to have spoken out of turn himself and sent Kennedy out to reel it back in.
Given the growing opposition to the AUKUS alliance in Australia, including within the ruling Labor Party, perhaps Blinken and the rest of the U.S. security establishment is not taking Australia’s support for granted anymore. Blinken stepped in it and had Kennedy try to clean up the mess.
Second, as suspected by many Assange supporters on social media, Kennedy’s words may have been intended as a kind of ploy, perhaps to lure Assange to the United States to give up his fight against extradition in exchange for leniency.
In its article based on Kennedy’s interview, The Sydney Morning Herald spoke to only one international law expert, a Don Rothwell, of Australian National University in Canberra, who said Assange would have to go to the United States to negotiate a plea. In a second interview on Australian television, Rothwell said Assange would also have to drop his extradition fight.
Of course, neither is true. “Usually American courts don’t act unless a defendant is inside that district and shows up to the court,” U.S. constitutional lawyer Bruce Afran toldConsortium News. “However, there’s nothing strictly prohibiting it either. And in a given instance, a plea could be taken internationally. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s not barred by any laws. If all parties consent to it, then the court has jurisdiction.” But would the U.S. consent to it?
Were Assange to give up his legal battle and voluntarily go to the U.S. it would achieve two things for Washington: 1). remove the chance of a European Court of Human Rights injunction stopping his extradition should the High Court in London reject his last appeal; and 2). it would give the U.S. an opportunity to “change its mind” once Assange was in its clutches inside the Virginia federal courthouse.
“The U.S. sometimes finds ways to get around these agreements,” Afran said. “The better approach would be that he pleads while in the U.K., we resolve the sentence by either an additional sentence of seven months, such as David Hicks had or a year to be served in the U.K. or in Australia or time served.”
Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, told the Herald his brother going to the U.S. was a “non-starter.” He said: “Julian cannot go to the US under any circumstances.” Assange’s father, John Shipton, told the same to Glenn Greenwald last week.
So the U.S. won’t be getting Assange on its soil voluntarily, and perhaps not very soon either. And maybe it wants it that way. Gabriel Shipton added: “Caroline Kennedy wouldn’t be saying these things if they didn’t want a way out. The Americans want this off their plate.”
Third, the U.S. may be trying to prolong Assange’s ordeal for at least another 14 months past the November 2024 U.S. presidential election. As Greenwald told John Shipton, the last thing President Joe Biden would want in the thick of his reelection campaign next year would be a high-profile criminal trial in which he was seen trying to put a publisher away for life for printing embarrassing U.S. state secrets.
But rather than a way out, as Gabriel Shipton called it, the U.S. may have in mind something more like a Great Postponement.
The postponement could come with the High Court of England and Wales continuing to take its time to give Assange his last hearing — for all of 30 minutes — before it rendered its final judgement, months after that, on his extradition. This could be stretched over 14 months. As Assange is a U.S. campaign issue, the High Court could justify its inaction by saying it wanted to avoid interference in the election.
According to Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and close Assange associate, the United States has not, despite Kennedy’s words last month, so far offered any sort of plea deal to Assange’s legal team. Murray told WBAI radio in New York:
“There have been noises made by the U.S. ambassador to Australia saying that a plea deal is possible. And that’s what the Australian Government have been pushing for as a way to solve it. What I can tell you is that there have been no official approaches from the American government indicating any willingness to soften or ameliorate their posihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNjwQNV4Gction. The position of the Biden administration still seems to be that they wish to persecute and destroy Julian and lock him up for life for publishing the truth about war crimes …
So there’s no evidence of any sincerity on behalf of the U.S. government in these noises we’ve been hearing. It seems to be to placate public opinion in Australia, which is over 80% in favor of dropping the charges and allowing Julian to go home to his native country…
The American ambassador has made comments about, oh well, a plea deal might be possible, but this is just rubbish. This is just talk in the air. There’s been no kind of approach or indication from the Justice Department or anything like that at all. It’s just not true. It’s a false statement, in order to placate public opinion in Australia.”
Afran said a plea deal can be initiated by the Assange side as well. Assange lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in May for the first time on behalf of his legal team that they were open to discussion of a plea deal, though she said she knew of no crime Assange had committed to plead guilty to.
The U.S. would have many ways to keep prolonging talks on an Assange initiative, if one came, beyond the U.S. election. After the vote, the Justice Department could then receive Assange in Virginia courtesy of the British courts, if this the strategy the U.S. is pursuing.
Everyone knows the official version of 9/11 is nonstop lies cover to cover. What we don’t know and may never know is what exactly did happen that terrible day. From Kevin Barrett at unz.com:
Image Source – Pixbay Free Content
On June 6, Tucker Carlson, America’s most-watched TV pundit, launched a new show on Twitter. No longer reined in by Fox News executives, Carlson was free to ask a big, explosive question: “What exactly happened on 9/11?” He answered himself: “Well, it’s still classified.”
A few months earlier, Carlson had appeared on Clayton Morris’s podcast and brought up World Trade Center Building 7, widely viewed as the Achilles heel of the official story of 9/11:
“If you say, like, ‘What actually happened with building 7? Like that is weird, right? It doesn’t—like, what is that?’… If you were to say something like that on television, they’d flip out. You’d, like, lose your job over that. It’s an attack on my country. Can I ask? I don’t really understand. Do buildings actually collapse? No, they—maybe they do. I don’t know. But, like, why can’t I ask questions about that?”
Carlson’s words betray his cognitive dissonance. “Do buildings actually collapse (like that)? No, they—maybe they do.” He almost blurts out the obvious truth—“no, they don’t”—before correcting himself with the (possibly sarcastic) “maybe they do. I don’t know.”
Carlson built his career by cultivating a reputation for straight talk, unfazed by political correctness. But as he suggests, straight talk about 9/11 in general, and WTC-7 in particular, is unwelcome in today’s USA. In mainstream media, even asking questions in unacceptable.
Why can’t we ask questions about Building 7? Because the answers are all-too-obvious—and all-too-embarrassing to the rulers of the intertwined American and Israeli empires.
World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story high-rise, collapsed into its own footprint at 5:21 pm on September 11, 2001, seven hours after the Twin Towers were destroyed. Numerous witnesses reported police and emergency personnel announcing that WTC-7 was about to come down. Seconds before it fell, witnesses overheard a countdown to demolition (“five-four-three-two-one”) on police radio, followed by the massive explosion that precipitated the “collapse.”
RT claims that ‘Fred the Felon’ was a supporter of Pete Buttigieg, but if you read the linked article, he was actually the head of ‘Truckers for Yang’.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
We have to have the courage to face our enemies. I think most readers of this article will already know that the psychotic element of the human race which has succeeded in establishing itself at the top of the end of the control pyramid, will stop at nothing to get its way.
That ‘way’ is to destroy the soul of humanity and bulldoze all but the most elementary expressions of nature.
What I have to report today escaped my attention until very recently, but unfortunately fits the above description all too well.
On 13 May 2021 the Defence and Armed Forces Ministry (MOD) of the UK government published a document entitled ‘Human Augmentation – the Dawn of a New Paradigm’. That title alone sent a shiver down my spine; but that shiver extended upon reading the first paragraph.
“The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre worked in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning to understand the future implications of human augmentation, setting the foundation for more detailed Defence research and development”.
“The project incorporates research from German, Swedish, Finnish and UK Defence specialists to understand how human augmentation emerging technologies could affect the future of society, security and Defence.”
Well, well, are we supposed to believe that these ‘defence specialists’ are coming together to make a detached survey of the state of the art developments of human beings re-engineered to become instant battlefield weapons?
Not likely! This is a description of a collaboration designed to work-out the optimum potential of such cyborgian kamikaze bipedals, to be at the cutting edge of offensive military hardware in the very near future.
We read on
“Human augmentation technologies provide a broad sense of opportunities for today and in the future. These are mature technologies that could be integrated today with manageable policy considerations, such as personalised nutrition, wearables and exoskeletons.“
What in God’s name are they talking about?
Are readers of this UK government document supposed to know what ‘personal nutrition’, ‘wearables’ and ‘exoskeletons’ actually are?
Bear in mind that this was written in the middle of the great Covid hoax. Doesn’t it ring of something equally diabolical?
But wait, it gets worse
“There are other technologies in the future with promises of bigger potential such as genetic engineering and brain computer interfaces.”
OK, thanks. Now you have let us into an uncloaked description of what’s to come in a language most can understand. The weaponised corporals in the front line of the war with…China?..Russia? will be computer programmed Transhumans – the jewel in the crown of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, Fourth Industrial Revolution. We might have guessed.
But hey, just take a look at the next revelation
“The ethical, moral and legal implications of human augmentation are complex and hard to foresee and regular engagement with these issues must be thoroughly considered.”
Hard to foresee? Only if you are a deeply psychotic, mind-blind and insentient demon disguised as a human being.
The document ends with the following statement
“Human augmentation could signal the coming of a new era of strategic advantage with possible implications across the force development spectrum.”
“A new era of strategic advantage with ‘possible implications’ across the force development spectrum”. Now the shiver has reached my heart, but I’m not letting it dwell there for more than a couple of seconds. In fact I’m outraged by the utter obscenity of all these statements.
What kind of ‘strategic advantage’ are these technocrats talking about? What kind of ‘possible implications’ for the ‘force development spectrum’? Possible implications?
“Hi Sam, this is Houston Automated Army Digital Defence Centre, here’s your instructions: plug-in corporal Jones and line him up with target 371. Make sure his wearables are set on invisible mode and that he is equipped with ‘insecto-synth-nutrit’ augmentation capsules. We’ll be steering him from here. But you guys need to be alert to any retaliation within the war theater.”
It is highly instructive that in the ‘related content’ section at the end of the MOD document are the following links:
Financing the 2030 Agenda through Covid-19 and beyond
Agenda 2030: delivering the global goals
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Investing in a Better World: Results of UK Survey on Financing SDG’s (Sustainable Development Goals).
This is an in-your-face head’s-up for anyone still failing to understand ‘the programme’ being driven forward by the darkly possessed globalist cabal. A programme designed to exterminate warm hearted, living breathing human beings like you and me and replace us with a mix of mind controlled/hypnotised slaves and digitally programmed robotic devices that ape elementary human behaviour patterns.
The authors of this report should already be in the dock for advancing the implementation of such egregious crimes against humanity. This is ice cold techno-military gamesmanship portrayed as a shared and even ‘ethical’ scientific overview of the latest developments in high-tech sub human battlefield deployments – and its all part of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development and the Great Reset.
One must not underestimate the lengths this evil cohort will go to achieve its ambitions. It will ‘voluntarily’ stop at nothing. So it must be stopped by us.
If we want the light of day to shine on future generations – we must resolutely commit to putting our best energies into making sure we win this war; empowering our light to vanquish the darkness.
Warriors of the Golden Dawn – step forward!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ ‘In Defence of Life’ and ‘Creative Solutions to a World in Crisis’. For more information see his website www.julianrose.info
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock
The original source of this article is Global Research
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
I am writing this paper to warn the world about the destructive impact of the trilateral military alliance that will not only kill South Korean democracy, security and economy but also widens the expressway to the East-West war.
This trilateral summit was a summit of three dangerous men.
The President of U.S. Joe Biden has pathological obsession to kill Asia led by China.
The Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida has the dangerously outdated dream of conquering again Asia starting with Korea and restoring the past years’ imperial power and glory of Japan.
The President of South Korea, Yoon Suk-yeol is idiotic and cowardly enough to sell his country for his own protection from angry South Koreas and the vengeful North Koreans.
The trilateral summit was a summit of three leaders who do not have the necessary condition for being leader, namely, the love for the people. Biden is indifferent to ordinary Americans’ suffering. Kishida despises ordinary Japanese people. Yoon hates ordinary Korean people.
The trilateral summit was a summit of the most unpopular global leaders. According to Global Leader Approval Rating Tractor (August 16-22, 2023). The approval rates were: Biden (40%), Kishida (23%), Yoon (22%). Yoon was just before the most unpopular Petr Fiala of Czech Republic (21%).
By the way, Biden’s approval rate after two-year presidency is the lowest in comparison with other presidents’ corresponding approval rates.
What happened at the summits is a story of how two seasoned diplomats have mercilessly exploited an idiotic and stupid man in order to promote their interests, especially, their personal political and other interests.
It is a story of a wrong man (Yoon Suk-yeol) who appeared at wrong time to do wrong things.
This paper offers the story of why and how Yoon Suk-yeol offered South Korea to powerful U.S. and cunning Japan.
This summit is a cursed summit, for two reasons:
First, it will destroy South Korea
Second, it will lead to the Mutual Destructive War (MDW) of the West’s crusade war against the East
This paper discusses the following issues:
Historical context of Yoon’s anti-Korea behaviour
Yoon’s anti-Korea diplomacy
Impact of Yoon’s anti-Korea diplomacy
***
Historical Context of Yoon’s Anti-Korea Behaviour
To understand Yoon’s anti-Korea behaviour, we need to know more about the fatal fight between the pro-Japan conservative South Korea (PJCSK) and the liberal nationalist South Korea (LNSK).
Yoon Suk Yeol leaving the People Power Party (PPP) headquarters shortly after joining the party on 30 July 2021 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
The PJCSK was formed during the Japanese colonial era (1910-1945). Korea was annexed to Japan in 1910 due to the treason of pro-Japan politicians led by the traitor, Lee Wan Yong.
This group collaborated with colonial Japan in the stealing of Korea’s assets, in capturing more than 200,000 young girls to be sent to the Japanese military comfort women camp, in mobilizing about 800,000 Korean workers to work as salves in Japanese mines and factories, in forcing Koreans to give up their Korean family name and pick up a Japanese name and other treasonable activities designed to oppress and exploit Koreans.
Thus, the PJCSK were “traitors” who betrayed Korea.
You may ask me why I call the PJCSK as pro-Japan and conservative.
They identified themselves more with Japan than with Korea. Moreover, they were and are more interested in promoting Japan’s interests than protecting Korea’s interests. So, they were and are pro-Japan.
They did every illegal and immoral activity to conserve their wealth which was and is largely stolen. So they were and are conservative.
Their conservatism has little to do with the conservation of some noble values. This fact may be applied to many countries throughout the world.
The present PJCSK is composed of the traitors and their descendents. It is represented by the People Power Party (PPP) which is the linear descendent of the Republican Party created in 1963 by General Park Chung-hee with USD 66 million given by Kishi Nobuske who was the key aid of Tojo Hidekki, Japan’s prime minister during the Pacific War.
The opposing political force in South Korea is the liberal nationalist South Korea (LNSK) represented by the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK). The leader of the DPK is Lee Jae-myung.
The PJCSK represents about 30% of the South Korean population, while non-PJCSK population represents 70% led by the LNSK group.
I may add here that, in a way, the post-WWII political history of South Korea has been the history of PJCSK-LNSK battle.
After WWII, the leaders of the PJCSK (traitors) were supposed to be punished even liquidated. In fact, the LNSK made a list of these traitors, but the list was confiscated by the pro-Japan police.
Furthermore, the American military government (1945-1948) and the rotten government of Syngman Rhee (1948-1960) appointed the traitors to key positions of the government.
There were a series of large-scale protests movements against the American military government and Rhee’s government resulting in massacre of several hundreds of thousands of civilians by the American CIC (Counter Intelligence Corps) and Rhee’s terrorist youth gangs and the police.
The traitors’ big headache was the survival and the protection of their privileges and wealth obtained illegally and immorally.
To do that, they had to keep control the South Korean people through the perpetual government. But, they knew that they could never get the power through democratic way. Only way was the dictatorship.
As a matter of fact, South Korea was oppressed and exploited by the merciless and criminal military dictatorship for 25 years from 1962 to 1987. General, Park Chung-hee ruled from 1962 to 1979, while General Chun Doo-hwan ruled from 1980 to 1987.
After 1987, General Rho Tae-woo governed South Korea from 1987 to 1993 followed by Kim Yong-sam from 1993 to 1998. During this 10-year period, the PJCSK continued to strengthen their power through well organized system of the embezzlement of tax payers’ money.
In 1998, something happened. Kim Dae-jung was elected as president of South Korea. Kim was the leader of the LNSK. Kim’s victory was the results of the LNSk’s sustained fight against the PJCSK. Kim’s victory was also the results of his remarkable plans of handling of the foreign currency crisis of 1997 caused by the corruption of the traitors.
Kim’s government (1998-2003) was succeeded by the government of Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008). Kim and Rho, leaders of the LNSK, did two things which alarmed the PJCSK.
One was the increase allocation of tax payers’ money for the welfare of all the citizens. This meant less money to be stolen by the traitors.
The other was something which threatened the future of the PJCSK, because Kim and Rho were able to produce the North-South peace process.
They also produced North-South joint statements for peaceful unification and economic cooperation. Kim Dae-jung produced it on the 15th of June 2000; Rho Moo-hyun produced it on October 4, 2007.
It must be pointed out that the peaceful unification of Korea means, as far as the PJCSK was concerned, not only the marginalization of the PJCSK community but also harsh punishment of the traitors by North Koreans.
The peace process and the North-South economic cooperation have resulted in the weakening of the PJCSK’s political and economic position.
However, the PJCSK was not idle. It fought back. In 2008, Lee Mung-bak became president of South Korea (2008-2013). Lee was notorious for his cunning methods of killing adversaries and enriching the corruption culture community of the PJCSK.
He forced Rho Moo-hyun to kill himself through the manufactured bribe scandal of Mrs. Rho.
However, the vision and the spirit of Rho are still alive and they remain the source of the courage and the determination of LNSK to get rid of the traitors.
Lee Myung-bak would have embezzles billions of dollars through the “4-Rivers Project” and the “Natural Resources Diplomacy.”
Lee was succeeded by Park Geun-hye, daughter of General Park Chung-hee (2013-2017).She was not qualified to run a government. But she was picked to enrich the PJCSK.
However, what was a historical irony was the fact that their complicity to enrich the PJCSK with stolen money has resulted in the further loss of PJCSK’s legitimacy and credibility.
Thus, the force and the credibility of the PJCSK which began to fall due to the ten-year governing by the LNSK under Kim Dae-jung and Rho Moo-hyun has been further damaged by the corruption and the abuse of power by Lee Mung-bak and Park Geun-hye.
Then, in 2017, Moon Jae-in came along and became president after the 8-month long Candle-Light Revolution carried out by 27,000,000 South Koreans.
Moon hit hard the PJCSK through the social and economic reforms, the promotion of PMEs along with the war against the corruption culture of the PJCSK.
I may point out here that the power of the LNSK has been attributable to a series of mass protest demonstrations leading to the ruin of PJCSK presidents and the LNSK’s access to power.
Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in, Panmunjom Declaration (2018)
The following is the list of massive protest demonstrations by the LNSK and the punishment of the six PJCSK presidents:
April 19, 1960: The Student Revolution forcing President Rhee Syngman to flee after being accused for corruption and abuse of power.
October 16 1979:the BUMA Protest leading to the assassination of President Park Chung-hee for corruption and abuse of power.
May 18, 1980:the Kwangju Democratic Movement leading to the imprisonment of Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Rho Tae-woo for treason (Chun), corruption and abuse of power.
June10, 1987:the Democratic Movement leading to the amendment of the Constitution leading o the formation of civil government.
2016-2017:the Candle-light Revolution resulting in the imprisonment of Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye for corruption, abuse of power and incompetence de govern (Park).
Thus, none of the six presidents of the PJCSK has ended his or her presidency in honourable way.
This shows how deeply the PJCSK has been corrupted on the one hand, and, on the other, how hard the LNSK has fought back risking the lives of its members.
This is what has made the PJCSK panicky and made it to do everything possible to take back the power.
The PJCSK was searching for the possible presidential candidate who could restore the PJCSK’s power, privileges and wealth. They picked Yoon Suk-yeol.
As I mentioned several times in my previous Global Research articles, Yoon has none of the qualities to become president.
On the other hand, he has one quality useful for the PJCSK — he has the desire and means to kill the enemies of the PJCSK which may threaten the vested interests of the corrupted PJCSK.
He has been a prosecutor all his professional life capturing, sending innocent people to prison and even destroying the entire family of those who are suspected to be against the interests of the PJCSK.
Despite the absence of presidential qualities, the PJCSK chose Yoon as their presidential candidate at the 2022 election.
Once elected, the first priority of Yoon Suk-yeol was the destruction of the LNSK on the one hand and, on the other, the survival of the PJCSK allowing the recovery of its wealth and the privilege. To do so, Yoon applied the following measures.
The destruction of the trace of the DPK by imprisoning the all of the key former aids of the Moon Jae-in government.
The killing of possible leaders of the LNSK trough fabricated scandals, usually sex scandals or bribes scandals.
The mobilization of the media, the prosecutor office and the police to do politically assassinate the leader of the opposition party, Lee Jae-myung.
The nomination of prosecutors to most of the major minister jobs and deputy minister positions in order to create the prosecutor dictatorship.
In fact, South Korea is now run by prosecutors who are absolutely ignorant about running a government.
The imposition of extreme form of neo-liberal economic system by facilitating the PJCSK’s embezzlement of public funds, by making the Chaebols richer and more powerful and by preventing job creation through the prevention of SME expansion.
Yoon has been deploying every possible means to destroy the LNSK. But, he still feels unsecure and seeks protectors, which are Japan and the U.S.
Now, we will see below how Yoon has been trying to destroy South Korea through dangerous and criminal diplomacy in complicity with Kishida and Biden.
Yoon’s Anti-Korea Diplomacy
Diplomacy with Japan
The relation between PJCSK and Japan has always been the master-servant relations. In fact, the PJCSK has been Japan’s neo-colony, ever since 1945, in the sense that the PJCSK has been promoting the economic, political and ideological interests of Japan and those of the PJCSK at the expense of the interests of the LNSK.
What is amazing is this. The PJCSK thinks that its fate depends on the destiny of Japan, because the PJCSK was co-offender of war crimes committed during the Japanese colonial era (1910-1945).
The PJCSK thinks that Korea is an extension of Japan. It may even wish for Korea’s annexation to Japan 2.0.
This may sound absurd. Is it? It happened before in 1910 because of the traitor Lee Wan Yong. Many think that Yoon Suk-yeol is the reincarnation of Lee Wan Yong.
Yoon’s diplomacy with Kishida has produced two results which are catastrophic to Korea.
One was the justification of Japanese colonialism and the other was the promotion of the Japanese interests at the expense of Korea’s interests.
Justification of Japanese colonialism
Yoon supports the Japanese arguments that the Japanese colonialism was beneficial to Korea, that Korea was annexed, because of Korea’s incapacity to govern Korea, that the crime of the sex slavery of the 200,000 comfort women never happened, that the labour slavery of 800,000 Korean workers never took place.
Yoon did not protest when Kishida hinted that Dokdo/Takeshima Island was Japanese territory. The issue of Dokto /Takeshima Island can provoke ROK-Japan war.
Japan does not like to pay compensation to the Korean workers who were exploited by the Japanese firms as salves. The Supreme Court of Korea ordered the guilty Japanese firms to pay the compensation. Japanese firms refused to pay. Stupid Yoon has asked the Korean firms that have nothing to do with labour slavery to pay it.
Promotion of Japanese Interest at the expense of Korea’s interests
South Korean GDP per capita has been catching up rapidly the Japanese GDP per capita. In 2004, Japan’s per capita GNP (nominal) was USD 38,307 as against USD 16,283 for South Korea. Thus, the ROK’s per capita GDP was mere 43% of the Japanese per capita GDP.
Now in 2023, the Japanese per capita GDP is USD 35,400 as against USD 34,967 for South Korea. Thus, in 2023, the South Korea’s per capita GDP is 96.5% of the Japanese per capita GDP.
Moreover, if we compare the two countries’ per capita GDP (PPP), Korean per capita GDP (PPP) is USD 56,693 as against USD 51,800 for Japan. Thus, South Korean per capita GDP (PPP) is 9% higher than the Japanese per capita GDP (PPP). By the way, PPP stands for purchasing power parity.
Yoon has applied every possible measure to sow down the ROK’s GDP growth so that the Korean economy stops being competitive with the Japanese economy.
Yoon has adopted the extreme form of neo-liberal economic policy by favouring large corporations at the expense of the welfare of the people. This policy leads to the fall of the GDP growth due to falling domestic demand resulting from skewed income distribution in favour of the PJCSK and Japan which dislikes fast growth of ROK’s GDP.
Japan does not like the competitive South Korean small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which provide chemical products needed for the production of semi-conductors. Therefore, Yoon cut subsidies usually given to Korean SMEs and brought in Japanese SMEs to South Korea.
Yoon does not care much about the falling Korean exports to China which is attributable to ROK’s joining the American war camp preparing the war against China. The reason is that Japan will fill the trade vacuum left by South Korea.
Yoon’s diplomacy with Biden
Yoon’s diplomacy with Biden has resulted in the de fact trilateral military alliance.
Image: Yoon with President Biden in the Oval Office, April 2023. (Licensed under the Public Domain)
The joint statement said: “If one member country is attacked, it is considered as attack to all the three countries.” [Is this not “a copy and paste” of Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty] It means, in fact, the trilateral military alliance.
Moreover, the military alliance will be institutionalized. This means that even if the government changes in the countries, the alliance will be made to stay through every possible mean including, most likely, cyber manipulation of the election results and even covert operation to destroy government which tries to break the military alliance.
In the trilateral military alliance, the whole strategy of the alliance will be determined by Washington; Japanese army will have the task of the field command; South Korean army will do all the dirty works.
The trilateral military alliance is more than welcome by Washington.
It has been long time since Washington wanted the trilateral military alliance needed to preserve its global hegemony and to eliminate those countries which may challenge America’s hegemony such as China and Russia.
True, Washington has the AUKUS and QUAD. But, the AUKUS is not strong enough. The UK is far away from Asia, Australia a small military power. The QUAD is not reliable, because India is not a sure military ally.
Therefore, Washington’s is more than happy to have the ROK army in its war camp. Remember, the ROK army had, in 2021, 500,000 regular soldiers 3,100,000 reserves giving a powerful military might.
ROK army is now the 6th most powerful army in the world in fire power. The Japanese military is the 8th most powerful military.
The country that gained most from the three summits is surely Washington. I am sure that the American pro-war community (APWC) is very happy, because the trilateral military alliance increases the probability of shooting Sino-American war.
Therefore, the defence budget will rise substantially. It will make the APWC richer.
But, this will reduce the resources needed to solve internal problems including the infrastructure decaying, widening income gap, street violence, the jobless, the homeless.
Impact of Yoon’s Anti-Korea Diplomacy
The impacts of Yoon’s diplomacy may be grouped into two sets of impacts: economic impacts and security impacts.
Economic Impacts
The economy of South Korea has been declining ever since Yoon Suk-yeol took over the power in 2022. The rate of GDP growth has been continuously downward adjustment and the 2023 projection is not far from 1.0% even lower than the Japanese GDP growth rate (2%).
The slowing down of GDP growth is due to several factors: pro-PJCSK economic policy; pro-Japan economic policy and the weaponization of trade.
The Pro-PJCSK economic policy Yoon’s economic policy has been designed to maximize the wealth of the PJCSK at the expense of the income of the ordinary South Koreans. Yoon cut down corporate tax, increased subsidies to large corporations, cut subsidies to SMEs and cut down welfare expenditures. This has resulted in falling domestic demand inviting slower GDP growth.
The pro-Japan economic policy: The objective of Yoon’s pro-Japan economic policy consists in making the ROK economy more dependent on the Japanese economy. To do this, Yoon has begun to discourage the domestic production of major high-value added intermediate materials needed for the production of high-tech goods including semi-conductors.
The weaponization of trade and investments: Under the system of military alliance, the trade becomes highly strategic and selective determined by Washington. ROK is no longer free in selecting trade partners and the choice trade goods.
Similarly, international investments become strategic and selective determined by Washington. The ROK companies are no longer free in selecting out-going and incoming investing countries and investing fields.
The combination of the above three sets of policies can lead to the long-run stagnation of the South Korean economy.
Security Impacts
The security impact of the trilateral military alliance includes these impacts:
Rapid increase of the number of enemies and loss of ROK’s international markets,
The loss of credibility of South Korea’s foreign relations,
The increasing danger of the Korean War 2.0,
The danger of forming the trilateral military alliance among North Korea, China and Russia,
The increasing danger of Japan’s holy war 2.0.
Increasing number of enemies and loss of ROK’s international markets: South Korea has no enemies so far. It is true that North Korea has been regarded as enemy, but most of South Koreans regard North Koreans as brother and sisters. The PJCSK and the U.S consider North Korea as enemy either for the maintenance of power or weapon sales.
ROK’s joining the trilateral military alliance has made all the American enemies and all the Japanese enemies South Korea enemies including of course China, Russia and North Korea, let alone American enemies in the Middle East, Africa and the South America.
It is just horrible to imagine the impact of these enemies on ROK’s trade. Remember this. In South Korea, the two-way trade represent as much as 100% of its GDP.
The Loss of credibility of South Korea’s foreign relations: Under President Moon Jae-in (2017-2022), South Korea’s foreign relations received credibility and respect throughout the world due to the fact that Washington’s interference was relatively weak. President Moon had the courage and the wisdom to develop more autonomous foreign relations. But under the trilateral military alliance, Seoul’s autonomous foreign relations become much more difficult.
Increasing danger of Korean war 2.0: The trilateral military alliance increases the danger of the second Korean War. Ever since Yoon took the power, he has been provoking North Korea in words and in actions. He mentioned his intention of undertaking the pre-emptive attack in addition to expanding scale of the ROK-US-Japan military exercises.
North Korea is angry and has been increasing the frequency and destructive power missile tests. Kim Yo-jong, second in command in North Korea said about Yoon Suk-yeol: “I don’t like him as human being.”
What is scaring is the possibility of Yoon’s provocation of North Korea with small scale military attack in order to increase his falling approval rate knowing well that this can lead to the Korean War 2.0.
The danger of forming the trilateral military alliance among North Korea, China and Russia (NKCR): The Japan-ROK-U.S. military alliance (JKORUS) can accelerate the formation of NKCR which can lead to the exclusion of South Korea from the Eurasian economic block.
The future of the ROK economy will be determined by its integration into the Eurasian economic bloc not the Indo-Pacific economic bloc. Hence the JKORUS can be a fatal factor of long-run stagnation of the ROK economy.
The increasing danger of the Japan’s Holy War 2.0:
There are several signs of the feasibility of Japan’s ambition to dominate Asia and restore the Great Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GACPS)
Yoon’s defence of the Japanese colonialism: Japanese colonialism was beneficial to Korea; the crime of comfort women never took place, the slavery of Korea workers never happened.
The Japanese elite group is composed of the descendents of the elite group of former imperial Japan who ruled Asia. This group is represented by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) led by the Kishi Nobuske-Shinzo Abe line of political and business leaders whom I call as the Neo-Meiji-Reformation Group (NMRG).
The existence of powerful pro-war think tank, the Japan Conference
The creation of pro-war social climate: return of Shintoism and Bushido
The persistence of Japanese complex of racial superiority of the elite group over Koreans and Chinese and the missionary conviction to enlighten Asians.
The Japanese racial superiority complex and the mission to rule Korea and China had its origin in the famous speech of Fukizawa Yukichi, founder of Keio University, “Good-by Asia” of 1885.
The persistent campaign to amend Article 9 of the 1948 Peace Constitution
The 2015 law allowing Japan to join the war to help ally
The plan of doubling Japanese defence budget in five years
The trilateral military alliance allowing Japanese to find excuse to intervene in Korean military conflict.
The trilateral military alliance allow Japan to use ROK military in Japan’s Asia conquest.
The possibility of the existence of the Biden-Kishida Agrementof 2023 similar to the Katsura-Taft Agreement of 1905 allowing Japan to annex Korea and letting the U.S to colonize the Philippines.
Already in South Korea, opinion makers are talking about the revival of the Japanese colonial government in Seoul.
It is now common belief that Yoon wants the revival of Japanese colonialism in Korea in order to protect himself and the PJCSK so that himself and members of the PJCSK can feel security and enjoy the wealth stolen from Koreans just like Lee wan Wong and has gang did under Japanese colonial rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945.
Conclusion
My first conclusion is that the tragic and catastrophic destruction of a country (South Korea) has happened due to the choice of a wrong leader whose actions are only for the protection of the stolen wealth and power for the PJCSK. The wrong leader is Yoon Suk-yeol.
Yoon knows nothing about economics, politics and diplomacy. He has spent all his professional life by arresting and imprisoning those who were critical about the corrupted culture of the PJCSK.
His policy decisions are affected by Shaman. His mother-in-law is in prison for frauds, bribes, blackmailing and other crimes. His wife has committed so many crimes deserving a very long imprisonment. But she is still free because of the corrupted prosecutors.
Yoon is a psychopath and has absolute worship for the strong. Biden is the strong; Japan is the strong. That is why he worships Biden and Kishida.
Let me repeat this. Yoon is coward who is afraid of Koreans and seeks refuge in Japan-dominated Korea. In other words, he wishes for the return of Japanese colonial power to Korea in which he may feel secure and in which he can exploit Koreans to become richer, more powerful and more comfortable just like Lee Wan-yong , the traitor, did in 1910.
My second conclusion is about Kishida and Biden. These two leaders know who and what Yoon is and, nonetheless, lured him to sign the cursed trilateral military alliance.
I am just wondering how far Biden and Kishida can go in using stupid Yoon to destroy South Korea. Don’t they have any sense of guilt? One would expect a little decency and compassion, if they are really world leaders.
Besides, South Korea is an ally of Japan and the U.S. Is it ethical to treat an ally in this way?
My third conclusion is about the anti-humanity behaviour of Biden and Kishida.
Biden is obsessed by the idea of destroying Asia led by China.
Kishida is infatuated with the imperialist dream of conquering again Korea and Asia.
The sad thing is that Biden’s obsession and Kishida’s dream will lead to global East-West war in which nobody is winner.
It will speed up the end of the humanity which has already started because of human greed, perpetual wars and man’s savage and irrational handling of the God-given nature.
I hope that the leadership in South Korea will change soon so that the dangerous military alliance can be broken. The mass movement for Yoon’s impeachment is getting strength. Bonne chance to the impeachment fight!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) and member of the Research Center on Integration and Globalization (CEIM-UQAM).
He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Krieg in der Ukraine, Putsch in Niger, Entwicklung der BRICS, drohender Krieg gegen China, potentieller Abstieg des US-Imperialismus, Zeitenwende in Deutschland, Aufrüstung, Sozialabbau und Untätigkeit der Gewerkschaften, die Schwäche der Friedensbewegung u.v.m.
Wir befinden uns in einer hochdynamischen Entwicklungsphase des Imperialismus. Fortschrittliche Kräfte müssen um richtige Einschätzungen ringen, um politisch aktiv eingreifen zu können und sich international zu verbinden.
Mit Referenten und Gästen aus aller Welt und aus der Linken und Kommunistischen Bewegung in Deutschland diskutieren wir über die hochaktuellen Dynamiken des Imperialismus und weltweiten Kämpfe gegen Ausbeutung und Unterdrückung.
Die ukrainischen Drohnenangriffe auf die Stadt Kurtschatow, in der die Mitarbeiter des Kernkraftwerks Kursk leben, verstoßen gegen eine der wichtigsten Regeln der nuklearen Sicherheitspolitik der Internationalen Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEA). Diese sehen vor, dass das Personal einer solchen Anlage in der Lage sein solle, seine Aufgaben zu erfüllen. Darauf weist Michail Uljanow hin, Russlands ständiger Vertreter bei internationalen Organisationen in Wien.
„Am 1. und 3. September griffen ukrainische Drohnen Kurtschatow an, eine Satellitenstadt des Atomkraftwerks Kursk, in der Mitarbeiter der Anlage und ihre Familienangehörige leben. Dies ist ein klarer Verstoß gegen die dritte der sieben Säulen der nuklearen Sicherheit, die der Generaldirektor der IAEA im März 2022 formuliert hat.
„Der Diplomat fügte hinzu, dass die ukrainische Seite auch „den regelmäßigen Beschuss von Energodar, einer Satellitenstadt des Atomkraftwerks Saporoschje, wieder aufgenommen hat, offenbar um das Personal der Anlage und ihre Familien einzuschüchtern“.Grossi hatte zuvor betont, dass das Betriebspersonal eines Atomkraftwerks in der Lage sein sollte, seine Sicherheitsverantwortung wahrzunehmen und ohne unangemessenen Druck Entscheidungen zu treffen.
Schmucke deutsche Vorstadtsiedlung nach der grünen Transformation, Deutschland 2040? (Symbolbild:Imago)
Olaf Gersemann konstatiert in der “Welt” so nüchtern wie treffend: “Die grüne Transformation ist ein Wachstumsmotor? Das ist die Lebenslüge der deutschen Klimapolitik.” Es ist eine wichtige und längst überfällige Feststellung, die wirklich jeder in seinen Schädel bekommen muss: Es wird kein grünes Wachstum geben; und wer euch etwas anderes erzählt, hat entweder keine Ahnung oder lügt euch vorsätzlich an. Im Zweifel wäre auch beides möglich. Es ist tatsächlich so simpel.
Deswegen kann ich beispielsweise mit einer Ökoradikalen wie Ulrike Herrmann besser umgehen als mit der Augenwischerei von Scholz und Konsorten: Die ist da wenigstens ehrlich und sagt ganz klar, dass die grüne Transformation ausschließlich realisierbar ist, wenn wir auf “Degrowth” und Kriegswirtschaft umstellen und drastische Einschnitte beim Wohlstand hinnehmen. All das lehne ich inhaltlich natürlich absolut ab, weil es die Blaupause für eine sozialistische Mangelwirtschaft und Massenverelendung ist und ich zudem den angeblichen Anlass für diese Einschränkungen, den vermeintlichen Weltuntergang, bezweifle. Aber das ist wenigstens aufrichtig – im Gegensatz zu den Lügen über angeblich bald supergünstigen Flatterstrom. Grundsätzlich muss auch jedem klar sein: Wir wenden gerade Billionen auf, um an in allen Bereichen an den Punkt zu kommen, an dem wir uns energietechnisch gerade schon befinden.
Scholz und seine Wachstumslügen
Wir erschaffen ja keine zusätzlichen Energiekapazitäten; wir ersetzen nur die vorhandenen. Es wird am Ende dieses Prozesses, so er denn wie geplant umgesetzt wird (was nicht der Fall sein wird), kein “Mehr” an Energie geben, das verteilt werden kann. Denn am Ende wird kein mengenmäßiger Zuwachs des verfügbaren Guts Energie eingetreten sein – und nur darin besteht ja ehrlicherweise reales Wachstum. Mit weniger Strom mehr Wirtschaftswachstum zu erreichen wäre so, als mit einem leeren Tank immer fahren zu können.
Wenn es nur darum ginge, das nominelle Bruttoinlandsprodukt zu erhöhen, dann könnte uns die Regierung schuldenfinanziert auch eine Million Euro Lohn pro Stunde dafür zahlen, dass wir in den Parks unserer Städte mit einer Nagelschere den Rasen stutzen. Das würde das BIP auch zum “Explodieren” bringen. Doch wären wir dann plötzlich alle reich? Nein, weil eben kein Zuwachs der verfügbaren Güter stattgefunden hat und sich die Preise lediglich an die neuen Einkommen und die erhöhte Geldmenge anpassen würden. Das eigentliche Wohlstandswachstum findet nur statt, wenn die Gütermenge und das Angebot erhöht werden, wodurch dann die Preise fallen. Doch genau diese Erhöhung der Gütermenge findet bei der “Energiewende” eben nicht mehr statt. Die grüne Transformation ist ein billionenschweres Verarmungsprogramm. Es ist verstörend und frustrierend, 34 Jahre nach dem Ende des letzten sozialistischen Staatsexperiments hierzulande wieder solche ökonomischen Binsenweisheiten erklären zu müssen. Da waren die Deutschen schonmal weiter.
Der Friedensstifter 