North Korea says new Trump security strategy seeks 'total subordination of whole world'

[webfact]

North Korea says new Trump security strategy seeks 'total subordination of whole world'

 

U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he returns to the White House after a visit to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, U.S., December 21, 2017. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

 

SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's new national security strategy unveiled this week is a "criminal document" that seeks the "total subordination of the whole world to the interests of the U.S.," North Korea's foreign ministry said on Friday.

 

"This has fully revealed that 'America first policy' which the gang of Trump is crying out loudly about is nothing but the proclamation of aggression aimed at holding sway over the world according to its taste and at its own free will," a foreign ministry spokesman said, according to a statement released by state media outlet KCNA.

 

In the document, announced on Monday, Trump said Washington had to deal with the challenge posed by North Korea's weapons programmes.

 

The U.N. Security Council is due to vote on Friday on a U.S.-drafted resolution that seeks, yet again, to toughen sanctions on North Korea in response to its latest intercontinental ballistic missile launch, diplomats said.

 

(Reporting by Josh Smith; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-22

[TKDfella]

I wonder that under the present circumstances NK should or even needs to make a statement?????

[hawker9000]

19 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I wonder that under the present circumstances NK should or even needs to make a statement?????

'Always a few Pyongyang thug-loving sympathizer-twits standing by to support it and cheer. 

[baboon]

20 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I wonder that under the present circumstances NK should or even needs to make a statement?????

The recent vote for further sanctions?

[riclag]

Why should NK have Nuclear missiles ? Perhaps if they sat down with China and the USA they could come to a agreement of not using nuke threats.

It goes without saying they(unofficially) have the Nukes and ICBM,so leave it at that.America has no desire to use force or threaten NK with destruction,unless they fire first.

The USA has tried diplomatically and will continue to try until....

 

 This mistrust of NK by the UN and USA started in 1985, NK joined the NPT in exchange for aid ,received the aid then (unofficially)rejected the NPT, to further develop nukes.

  Since then 

 *  " In 1992, North Korea entered into its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA under Article III of the NPT.  The Safeguards Agreement provides for measurements and observations of North Korean nuclear material and facilities by IAEA inspectors.  Article 26 of the Safeguards Agreement provides, "This Agreement shall remain in force as long as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is party to the Treaty [the NPT]."  Consequently, if North Korea has validly withdrawn from the NPT pursuant to its January 2003 announcement, the Safeguards Agreement would no longer be in force.  (North Korea's withdrawal from the IAEA, which occurred in 1994, did not amount to a withdrawal from the NPT and did not terminate the Safeguards Agreement.)

 

            North Korea's stated reasons for withdrawing from the NPT were that the United States was threatening its security by its hostile policy toward North Korea.  According to North Korea, the United States had singled it out as a target of a pre-emptive nuclear attack and had threatened it with a blockade and military punishment.  The question regarding North Korea's right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X, above, is not whether North Korea's allegations regarding the United States' intent or policies are true in any objective sense.  Instead, Article X allows each party to make its own decision as to whether extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of the NPT, have jeopardized its supreme interests.  Arguably, customary international law would impose a good faith requirement on the party deciding that extraordinary events have jeopardized its supreme interests, but the NPT does not establish any mechanism for making a determination as to whether a party has acted in good faith".

This is nonsense that the USA threaten hostility by threats of  using Nukes. NK didn't want to have IAEA inspectors investigating sites.

* https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/2/north-koreas-withdrawal-nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty

 

 

 

[Basil B]

Quote

North Korea has described the latest UN sanctions imposed on the country as an "act of war".

A foreign ministry statement said the measures were tantamount to a total economic blockade, the official KCNA news agency reported.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42470390

 

Is the silly boy declaring war on the UN?

 

going to launch a missile at UN HQ in New York?

 

If he does then NK likely to end up as the worlds first man made desert.

[baboon]

9 hours ago, riclag said:

Why should NK have Nuclear missiles ? Perhaps if they sat down with China and the USA they could come to a agreement of not using nuke threats.

It goes without saying they(unofficially) have the Nukes and ICBM,so leave it at that.America has no desire to use force or threaten NK with destruction,unless they fire first.

The USA has tried diplomatically and will continue to try until....

 

 This mistrust of NK by the UN and USA started in 1985, NK joined the NPT in exchange for aid ,received the aid then (unofficially)rejected the NPT, to further develop nukes.

  Since then 

 *  " In 1992, North Korea entered into its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA under Article III of the NPT.  The Safeguards Agreement provides for measurements and observations of North Korean nuclear material and facilities by IAEA inspectors.  Article 26 of the Safeguards Agreement provides, "This Agreement shall remain in force as long as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is party to the Treaty [the NPT]."  Consequently, if North Korea has validly withdrawn from the NPT pursuant to its January 2003 announcement, the Safeguards Agreement would no longer be in force.  (North Korea's withdrawal from the IAEA, which occurred in 1994, did not amount to a withdrawal from the NPT and did not terminate the Safeguards Agreement.)

 

            North Korea's stated reasons for withdrawing from the NPT were that the United States was threatening its security by its hostile policy toward North Korea.  According to North Korea, the United States had singled it out as a target of a pre-emptive nuclear attack and had threatened it with a blockade and military punishment.  The question regarding North Korea's right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X, above, is not whether North Korea's allegations regarding the United States' intent or policies are true in any objective sense.  Instead, Article X allows each party to make its own decision as to whether extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of the NPT, have jeopardized its supreme interests.  Arguably, customary international law would impose a good faith requirement on the party deciding that extraordinary events have jeopardized its supreme interests, but the NPT does not establish any mechanism for making a determination as to whether a party has acted in good faith".

This is nonsense that the USA threaten hostility by threats of  using Nukes. NK didn't want to have IAEA inspectors investigating sites.

* https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/2/north-koreas-withdrawal-nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty

 

 

 

Great copy and paste and all that, but take a look at the 1994 Agreed Framework which was doing at least reasonably well until the Bush White House ripped it up on the grounds that the DPRK were no longer ot might not in the future complying with the terms of the treaty. They did have IAEA inspectors. 

And what of the light water reactors promised to them for their energy needs but not delivered on?

 

[boomerangutang]

The best thing Kim can do regarding his hope that the US denigrates, ......is sit back, sip some Couvoisier, and do nothing.  Trump is doing more damage to the US than Kim could do if he could unleashed his entire arsenal on Alaska.  Trump is undermining the FBI, CIA, free press and Justice System, while making the rich richer.

 

If Kim wants the US to change its policies, it should get its message to Putin - who controls Trump's puppet strings.

 

 

 

 

[riclag]

38 minutes ago, baboon said:

Great copy and paste and all that, but take a look at the 1994 Agreed Framework which was doing at least reasonably well until the Bush White House ripped it up on the grounds that the DPRK were no longer ot might not in the future complying with the terms of the treaty. They did have IAEA inspectors. 

And what of the light water reactors promised to them for their energy needs but not delivered on?

 

 At least reasonably well? All reports said they can't be trusted !

“The inspectors were asked to leave the country immediately. “But first our inspectors witnessed our surveillance equipment being turned off and our seals removed. The DPRK authorities covered all surveillance cameras and pointed them to the wall.”

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-north-korea-inspectors-recall-day-when…

[riclag]

PT inherited a mess.Sadly the past administrations just kicked the can down the road.No matter what or how it happens, when  PT grabs the bull by the horns he will be judged as the instigator by his tormentors . So be it! 

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

PT inherited a mess.Sadly the past administrations just kicked the can down the road.No matter what or how it happens, when  PT grabs the bull by the horns he will be judged as the instigator by his tormentors . So be it! 

Past US administrations kept NK from firing so many missiles, and kept bullets being shot in anger.  Each day Trump is in the Oval Office is a day closer to war.  War always deviates from its initial goals.  Trump thinks he can do some quick strikes with stealth planes, and that will end the problem.  Similar to Bush Jr and Cheney thinking they could do a quick in and out in Iraq II.  War is always much messier than planned on the ping pong tables (using tin soldiers) within the Pentagon.   

 

Gallipoli during WWI was another example:  Brit, Australian and NZ forces thought they could go in and make quick work of defeating the Turks.  It was an ugly stand-off.  Hundreds of soldiers killed and maimed on both sides (600 more Brits killed, than Turks).   It accomplished nothing strategically.

[baboon]

8 hours ago, riclag said:

 At least reasonably well? All reports said they can't be trusted !

“The inspectors were asked to leave the country immediately. “But first our inspectors witnessed our surveillance equipment being turned off and our seals removed. The DPRK authorities covered all surveillance cameras and pointed them to the wall.”

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-north-korea-inspectors-recall-day-when…

You are either a poor reader or taking your own links deliberately out of context. From the above:

"An inspector’s mission in the DPRK would typically last two weeks, with two inspectors assigned to work together for three periods per year."

Hardly being asked to leave immediately, is it? However you seem to want to give an impression that that they were turned around and told to piss off the moment they landed.