N.
Korean Deputy
Tells ICP of
US Tomahawks,
UK Should Have
Written,
Strike
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 25,
updated with
transcript --
When North
Korean deputy
ambassador Ri
Tong Il held a
UN press
conference on
August 25, he
described his
government's
August 18
letter to the
UN Security
Council
requesting an
emergency
meeting about
the US - South
Korean joint
military
exercises,
Ulchi Freedom
Guardian.
On August 20,
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea's first
letter arose
in Security
Council
consultations.
As
Inner City
Press reported
that day, the
Council's
president for
August Mark
Lyall Grant of
the UK said
that China had
raised the
issue of the
letter, asking
for other
members'
views. He said
no further
action or
consideration
of the letter
is expected.
After Ri Tong
Il on August
25 said no
response had
been received,
Inner City
Press asked
him if, beyond
what Lyall
Grant said at
the stakeout,
a formal
letter should
have been
sent.
Citing a US
military web
site which
lists 10 other
countries
involved in
UFJ, including
the UK and
France, Inner
City Press
what about the
other
countries in
the joint
military
exercises, are
they just a
fig leaf?
Ri Tong Il
answered the
second
question first
saying that
the US never
gives troup
numbers, and
that every
time the US is
talking about
troops, under
pretext of
exercise they
bring in
nuclear
weapons,
aircraft
carrier George
Washington,
B52, Tomahawk
missiles. And
they have all
related
weapons. And
now concerning
number of
troops, over
half a
million. You
can see, they
are ready to
move at any
time. With
full capacity.
Plus, over
40,000
civilian
population of
South Korea.
This is a full
scale war
exercise and
the word
ewcercise is
not proper
one. They are
fully ready
since they
have been
holding them
annually.
On the
letter(s), Ri
Tong Il said
concerning the
response from
the UNSC, we
in the name of
the Permanent
Repressentative
presented a
formal request
addressed to
His Excellency
Grant, and in
established
practice of
protocol
whatever
answer should
be addressed
to us. They’re
not showing
any respect
even for the
protocol. They
should reply.
Inner City
Press
immediately
asked the UK
Mission to the
UN, whose
spokesperson
Iona Thomas
quickly replied,
"On the
letter, it is
my
understanding
that there is
no requirement
to respond to
such requests
in
writing.
As the
Ambassador
said at the
stakeout on
Wednesday,
there was no
support in the
Council for
discussing the
issue."
Perhaps
burying the
lead on August
25 Ri Tong Il
said, "The
entire army of
DPRK is
closely
watching. DPRK
will conduce
the most
powerful
pre-emptive
nuclear strike
against the US
since the US
openly
decleared it
would use
so-called
tailored
deterrents. As
long as the US
exposes its
intention to
remove the
government of
Pyongyang, the
DPRK responds
the same way
by making out
conter-actions
on a regular
basis."
Back
on August 1,
Inner City
Press asked Ri
Tong Il if he
had asked for
the letter to
be formally
circulated, or
would North
Korea take it
to the General
Assembly?
Ri
Tong Il
replied that
it is not a
question of
approaching
individual
countries, but
a formal
request to the
Security
Council. Inner
City Press
inquired with
the mission of
Rwanda, July's
president, and
got a copy of
the letter and
the response
that there was
no consensus
for holding
the requested
emergency
meeting. Inner
City Press has
put
the letter
online here.
Also, at the
bottom of this
page is a fast
transcript of
the press
conference, by
Inner City
Press &
the Free UN
Coalition for
Access.
Inner
City Press
also asked Ri
Tong Il for an
update on his
mission's announcement
thirteen
months ago
that it sought
the end of the
so-called “UN
Command” in
South Korea.
Ri Tong Il
said his
country
remains
opposed to it:
On UN
command, the
DPRK is
consistently
insisting on
the
dismantling of
UN Command in
South Korea.
This is a UN
body but not
under the
direction of
the UN, it is
not under the
approval of
its budget. If
you look at
the inside
nature, 100
percent US
troops. This
is a typical
example of
position of
power by the
US. It should
be dismantled.
And we are
raising it to
the UN on a
regular basis.
Later
on August 1
Inner City
Press asked
Stephane
Dujarric, the
spokesman for
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, if
Ban has
received North
Korea's letter
complaining
about the Seth
Rogen film
“The
Interview.”
(Inner City
Press has commented
on the letter,
here.).
Dujarric said
the letter has
been received,
but Ban has no
response.
Ban,
of course, was
South Korea's
foreign
minister. His
c.v. or biography,
including
for a recent
op-ed about
Haiti
(where the UN
brought
cholera and then
has dodged
accountability),
states that
Ban previously
served as
“Director of
the UN’s
International
Organizations
and Treaties
Bureau.”
Other
iterations
say he was
director of
the “UN’s
International
Organizations
and Treaties
Bureau in
South Korea,
Seoul” (here).
So was that
really a UN
(or “UN's”)
agency? Or is
is like the UN
Command? Watch
this site.
Footnote:
In
Ri Tong Il's
press
conference,
the UN
Correspondents
Association
demanded the
first
question, and
gave it to a
representative
of a media
from Japan -
another
representative
of which took
a second
question,
before other
media got even
one. While
both are
genial, this
is how UNCA, a/k/a
the
UN's
Censorship
Alliance,
works.
The
new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
is opposed to
any set-asides
or automatic
first
questions.
Also, despite
the continued
censorship
of the
question,
the Free UN
Coalition for
Access
believes that
at a minimum
the UN
should
disclose “in
kind” (or
gift) private
jet travel for
Ban Ki-moon
paid for by a
state.
We'll have
more on this.
Fast
transcript
of August 25,
2014, by Inner
City Press /
FUNCA:
This
is
the second
time the DPRK
presented a
formal
request.
First, the
reasons why
DPRK made
another
request.
I
can give you
two basic
reason. First,
the exercise
is not simply
routine. This
is strictly
and totally
war exercise,
nuclear war
exercise
targeted
against the
DPRK. Last
week Monday,
18 August, the
US despite
warnings by
the DPRK
pushed ahead
with the
planned joint
milit
exercises.
Very dangerous
aggressive
nature. As far
as history
is concerned,
this is very
notorious for
its shameful
record. This
is
not started in
recent years.
This dates
back to 1954.
Since that
time
onwards, it
has not
skipped a
year. This
exercise is
very negative
nad most
dangerous, the
largest
military
exercises.
Over
half
a million
personnel and
troops,
including
South Korea
occupying
US troops, US
troops, and
South Korea
air and naval
troops. As far
as
their purpose,
the US is not
hiding the
factr that
this is aimed
at
Pyongyang
occupation.
They are
applying the
so-called
tailored-deterrent
strategy. The
US and South
Korea finally
agreed
this last
October. It is
reflecting the
so-called
nuclear crisis
in
the DPRK. The
first stage is
the stage of
threats. The
second stage
is close to
the use of
nuclear
weapons by
DPRK. The
third stage is
the deployment
of nuclear
weapons.
Now
the
question is,
the language
in the second
stage. The
stage of use
of weapons by
DPRK. It is
intentionally
vague and only
up to the
judgment of
the US. Now,
at any time
under this
second stage
the US
can enter into
taking nuclear
pre-emptive
strike.
The
US
is militarily
blocking
whatever moves
towards easing
of tensions
on the Korean
peninsula. Our
supreme leader
made a warm
appeal in his
historic New
Year’s address
for securing
peace and
creating good
climate for
North-South
relations.
On
August
15, the
national
liberation day
from Japan,
the national
committee had
a proposal on
unconditional
suspension of
the planned
US-South Korea
joint military
exercises.
This was aimed
at removing
the danger of
nuclear war.
When
you
look at the
response from
the US, the US
did not show
any
positive
response. They
opened
military
provocations
with US-South
Korea joint
military
exercises. And
we can observe
the moveo fthe
DPRK, who has
been
continuing to
make generous,
sincere
efforts
towards easing
of tension and
reconciliation.
But there is a
very
negative
factor of the
US who has
been
undermining
moves toward
easing of
tension and
has been
continuously
intending to
drive the
situation to
the brink of
war.
These
are
the basic
reasons why
the DPRK made
another formal
request to the
SC. It is
already one
week since we
made a formal
presentation
with a
letter, on 18
August, last
Monday, the
very day when
it was opened
the joint
military
exercises. We
have not
received a
single word or
formal letter.
This is the
UNSC of today.
The failure of
the UNSC to
open an
emergency
meeting
clearly
indicates this
is because of
the
constant
pressure from
the US . It is
also exposing
the UNSC lack
of
impartiality
in working
methods, lack
of
responsibility
in its
mandate. Peace
and security
and key in its
mandate.
UNSC
is
continuing to
turn away from
our request
for a meeting
on the
joint military
exercises,
while they are
taking issue
with tactical
rocket
launches. This
shows the UNSC
is being
abused by one
specific
country, the
US. One
permanent
member of the
UNSC, in the
best
interest of
this country,
not in the
best interest
of
international
peace and
security under
the mandate of
the Security
Council.
The
UNSC
is encouraging
the US to
continue this
kind of very
provocative,
very dangerous
acts. If the
UNSC has a
mandate for
securing world
peace and
security, this
council should
immediately
recognize the
root cause.
Removing
the
cancer-like
existence of
the very
dangerous
joint military
exercise
The
UNSC
should no
longer take
the
counter-action
against the
DPRK. And
they should
not point
their finger
as a threat to
us. These
military
counter-actions
fo the DPRK
are saving the
world (???)
The situation
is being
driven into
touch and go
because of
this joint
military
exercises. The
entire army of
DPRK is
closely
watching. DPRK
will
conduce the
most powerful
pre-emptive
nuclear strike
against the US
since the US
openly
declared it
would use
so-called
tailored
deterrents. As
long as the US
exposes its
intention to
remove the
government of
Pyongyang, the
DPRK responds
the same way
by making out
counter-actions
on a regular
basis.
Q:
If
the UNSC takes
it up, what do
you hope to
achieve?
A:
Since
the US raised
condemning our
legitimate
counteractions,
and the
US went far
beyond their
territory, we
regard this
exercise as
having
shameful,
notorious
record. So
since they
raise,d and it
was the US
who raised,
the US should
not block.
Korea is one
nation, one
culture. It
was the US
drawing one
line, 1945,
that the
Korean war
broke out.
DPRK cannot
allow dropping
another bomb.
Q:
Will
you take the
issue to the
GA?
A:
This
is not what we
are asking. We
are talking
about SC. It
was
raised in the
SC, that’s why
we are raising
it.
Q:
Why
are you going
to the UNSC
now? These
exercises have
been going on
for years. And
are you really
going to do a
strike against
the US?
A:
Now
the US has
been holding,
without
skipping a
single year.
It is
becoming very
dangerous. The
nature and the
scale. And the
objective.
Now, coming
into the first
decade of this
century, 2010,
they started
to openly put
the name of
the DPRK as
the target.
Again, they
openly
said the
purpose was to
have Pyongyang
occupation. We
can no longer
tolerate this
exercise. They
are going
beyond the red
line, and
regime change
is the goal.
They are
continuing the
policy to
eliminate DPRK
militarily.
Q:
And
the
pre-emptive
strike against
the US?
A:
We
reserve the
right to
defend
ourselves from
outside
forces. And
also, we are
targeting in
practice, and
we are ready
to move into
action.
Inner
City
Press: Last
week, the UK
said they
wouldn’t
schedule a
discussion of
the letter.
Should they
have written
back to you?
Also,
what
about the
other
countries in
the joint
military
exercises?
A:
Every
time the US is
talking about
troops, under
pretext of
exercise
they bring in
nuclear
weapons,
aircraft
carrier George
Washington,
B52, Tomahawk
missiles. And
they have all
related
weapons. And
now
concerning
number of
troops, over
half a
million. You
can see, they
are ready to
move at any
time. With
full capacity.
Plus, over
40,000
civilian pop
of South
Korea. This is
a full scale
war exercise
and
the word
exercise is
not proper
one. They are
fully ready
since they
have been
holding them
annually.
Concerning
the
response from
the UNSC we in
the name of
the PR
presented a
formal request
addressed to
H.E. Grant,
and in est
practice of
protocol
whatever
answer should
be addressed
to us.
They’re
not
showing any
respect even
for the
protocol. They
should reply.
And
see
above
, 
