Jew World Order

Konstantin Asmolov (NEO) : On July 7, 2016, the United States included the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in the sanctions list for human rights violations. The statement made by the U.S. Treasury lists a total of 15 individuals, including Kim Jong-un, and 8 organizations directly involved in human rights violations, tracking down defectors and carrying out censorship. The list includes the former Vice Chairmen of the National Defence Commission Ri Yong-mu and O Kuk-ryol, Vice Chairman of the State Affairs Commission Hwang Pyong-so, Minister of People’s Security Choe Pu-il, and others. The organizations subject to sanctions include the National Defence Commission, Ministry of State Security, the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Central Committee of the WPK, and the Reconnaissance General Bureau.

The sanctions entail the freezing of all accounts of the aforementioned individuals in the U.S. banks. The property and investments of those on the “black list” that are under the U.S. jurisdiction will also be frozen. U.S. citizens are prohibited from entering into financial transactions with an individual or organization specified on the list.

Introduction of sanctions was made possible pursuant to the law on intensifying sanctions against North Korea passed by the U.S. Congress in February, 2016. For the period of 120 days after its adoption, the U.S. Secretary of State was to report back on the investigation of the human rights situation, identifying the individuals that must be on the list for personal sanctions. This report was prepared on July 6.

According to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Adam Shubin, the basis for the introduction of sanctions were human rights violations, extra-judicial executions, forced labour and torture, creation of concentration camps and persecution of North Korean citizens who attempt to leave to South Korea, as well as persecution of North Korean escapees abroad. In other words, “the governance of Kim Jong-un is characterized by cruelty to millions of North Koreans.”

The U.S. official pointed out that this was the first case of the USA introducing sanctions against North Korean officials in connection with human rights violations. He noted that the sanctions sent “a clear signal” to the entire business world on the undesirability of cooperation with the leadership of North Korea.

Thus, the United States has adopted direct restrictions against the leader of another country for the first time in history. North Korea’s response was as expected: the sanctions were drawn up based on the report, which contents were completely falsified. This was conducted since the USA “is scared of the unprecedented rate” at which North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. Thus, North Koreans declared that their enemies would not get away with compromising their supreme dignity. Pyongyang considers the adopted sanctions as a “declaration of war” (author’s note – I have lost count of how many times this has occurred), thus threatening to close down all diplomatic channels with the United States. From now on, all issues between Pyongyang and Washington will be resolved “in accordance with the laws of war.” Moreover, Pyongyang said: “our response will be of the severest nature due to the fact that the hostile schemes of the United States have been of the most extreme degree and affect our supreme dignity.”

However, Beijing also expressed its opposition to unilateral sanctions. Representative of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hong Lei stated that issues related to human rights should be resolved by way of dialogue and cooperation based on equality and mutual respect. China opposes sanctions imposed unilaterally on the basis of domestic laws. The Korean Peninsula is of particular relevance because of the complex and sensitive situation there that requires the appropriate sensitive handling.

The USA, however, ignored both statements. On July 7, the U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby announced that the administration would not be revising its decision. Referring to Pyongyang’s threat of closing down diplomatic channels to Washington, John Kirby said that he had “no information” on the direct diplomatic contacts between the USA and North Korea. He called on Pyongyang to refrain from actions that could lead to an escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The author has three observations on this. First, the event itself is of a hysterically demonstrative nature in the “how can we have a dig at them even more” category. There is no data on the U.S. businesses having contact with military intelligence or the propaganda department, and more importantly, no North Korean accounts in the U.S. banks.

It is a whole other thing that this is the U.S. informally trying to send signals to its satellites: it is either us or North Korea. This gesture is reminiscent of when the USA froze North Korean accounts with Banco Delta Asia (Macau) under the pretext of their criminal origin during hexalateral talks. Although it was later revealed that there had been no criminal connection, it was an attempt to cut off North Korea from the international financial system and give a signal to the banks conducting business with the North: if you continue, you will have problems.

Second, the document asserts that the young Kim has surpassed his father in his level of “cruelty to the millions”. In fact, high-profile stories about repression are likely to concern the elite, and the standard of life of the masses is visibly improving as evidenced by the changing image of the capital at least. Where are the great scandals regarding the persecution of defectors that can even match those that occurred under Kim Il-sung, not to mention Gaddafi’s “hunting down stray dogs”? Where are the “extra-judicial” executions that can be compared to those of the Haitian Tonton Macoutes or the Syngman Rhee’s “youth corps”? Why were the relatives of Shin Dong-hyuk, Kim Ryon-hui and “escapee” waitresses not preemptively executed as part of collective responsibility, but in fact went on to appear on North Korean TV?
It is particularly worth noting the absence of evidence of “persecution of dissidents outside North Korea.” Over the past five years (a period that can be ascribed to Kim Jong-un alone), there have been no high-profile cases, comparable to those that took place under Kim Il Sung in the sixties, when an ambassador was expelled from Moscow after one particular case. But then there was a real scandal about the fact that a student defector had been kidnapped, brought to the embassy and suffered from attempts of being illegally smuggled by diplomatic mail.

And if you cast a broader net, then the actions undertaken by the South Korean authorities in relation to its dissidents abroad fit this criterion to a tee. The limiting nature of an article does not allow me to develop this topic, but at the very least, it is worth paying attention to the story of Shin Eun-mi, who was suffered from attempts of being arrested and deprived of her citizenship. She was even the target of an attempted attack by youths from an ultra-patriotic organization who tried to burn her alive.

Third, these actions irritate the author not so much in their attempts to “demonise and provoke North Korea at any cost and by any means”, but in their demonstration of double standards that, in fact, seriously undermine trust and faith in justice. The more sanctions will be introduced against North Korea due to such selective evidence, the greater the impression will be that every such sanctions policy is subject only to the pressure from the short-term demands of the White House. However, in a situation of demonstratively selective justice, when it is less important what you have done rather whose friendship you keep, it is difficult to maintain respect for this institution and, as a result, thus begins the search for alternative methods and the collapse of the existing system.

Having won the “cold war” where the principle of “he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch” was at least somewhat politically justified, the United States was able to throw a curve ball and become a global hegemon due to building the system based on the rule of law and justice. In this context, the public might have even forgiven the first Iraq war, if following Hussein, several other odious rulers with a comparable list of crimes against their own people or contribution to the undermining of the foundations of security had been similarly punished. But alas, they did not belong to the same camp, and therefore, although Saudi Arabia itself could be demonised even further than North Korea for the same formal criteria, it is unlikely that we will hear anything about drastic sanctions against Riyadh in the near future. As long as the policies of this regime meet American standards, they will be pardoned, just as was the case with the alleged Saudi involvement in 9/11.

Those in the USA who really want law and justice should seriously think about that.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”