N. Korea to pull workers from key joint industrial zone
By Jung Ha-Won

SEOUL (AFP) — North Korea said Monday it was withdrawing all workers and suspending operations at its joint industrial zone with South Korea -- the only surviving symbol of inter-Korean cooperation.

The announcement came amid reports of heightened activity at the North's nuclear test site, although the South Korean Defence Ministry denied suggestions that a fourth nuclear test was imminent.

North Korea "will withdraw all its employees from the zone", Kim Yang-Gon, a senior ruling party official, said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

At the same time, Pyongyang "will temporarily suspend the operations in the zone and examine the issue of whether it will allow its existence or close it", Kim added.

Kaesong was built in 2004 as a rare symbol of cross-border economic cooperation.

Neither side has allowed previous crises to significantly affect the complex, a crucial hard currency source for the impoverished North and seen as a bellwether for stability on the Korean peninsula.

But Pyongyang has blocked South Korean access to Kaesong since last Wednesday, forcing 13 of the 123 South Korean firms operating to halt production.

Monday's announcement came just hours after South Korean Finance Minister Hyun Oh-Seok denounced the access ban as "ridiculous."

Pyongyang had threatened to withdraw its 53,000 workers last week after the South's defence minister said there was a "military" contingency plan in place to ensure the safety of South Koreans in the complex.

"How the situation will develop in the days ahead will entirely depend on the attitude of the South Korean authorities," said Kim, who blamed the pull-out on "military warmongers" who had affronted the North's "dignity."

The Korean peninsula has been locked in a cycle of escalating military tensions since the North's third nuclear test in February which drew toughened UN sanctions.

The South's Defence Ministry said Monday that activity detected at the North's Punggye-ri atomic test site was "routine" and should not be interpreted as final preparation for another detonation.

"There is no indication that a nuclear test is imminent," ministry spokesman Kim Min-Seok said, while adding that the North consistently maintained Punggye-ri at a state of test-readiness.

The daily JoongAng Ilbo had reported Monday intelligence reports of stepped-up activity at the site that might point to an upcoming test.

The South's Unification Minister had appeared to confirm the report, but then insisted his remarks had been misinterpreted.

North Korea's bellicose rhetoric has reached fever pitch in recent weeks, with near-daily threats of attacks on US military bases and South Korea in response to ongoing South Korea-US military exercises.

Intelligence reports suggest Pyongyang has readied two mid-range missiles on mobile launchers on its east coast, and is aiming at a test-firing before the April 15 birthday of late founding leader Kim Il-Sung.

Japan has ordered its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards its territory.

A missile launch would be highly provocative, especially given a strong rebuke the North's sole ally China handed it at the weekend and a US concession to delay its own planned missile test.

"No one should be allowed to throw a region, even the whole world, into chaos for selfish gains," Chinese President Xi Jinping told an international forum in southern China on Sunday.

Although he did not mention North Korea by name, Xi's remarks were taken as a clear warning to the regime in Pyongyang, which is hugely dependent on China's economic and diplomatic support.

On Saturday Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had told UN chief Ban Ki-moon that Beijing would "not allow troublemaking on China's doorstep".

The United States, which has met the North's threats with some military muscle-flexing of its own, offered a calibrated concession Saturday by delaying a planned inter-continental ballistic missile test.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday welcomed the decision to postpone the Minuteman 3 test, which the US had said it feared could be misconstrued as an attempt to exacerbate the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

The mid-range missiles mobilised by the North are reported to be untested Musudan models with an estimated range of around 1,860 miles (3,000km) that could theoretically be pushed to 2,485 miles with a light payload.

That would cover any target in South Korea and Japan, and possibly even US military bases on the Pacific island of Guam.

The North has no proven inter-continental ballistic missile capability that would enable it to strike more distant US targets, and many experts say it is unlikely it can even mount a nuclear warhead on a mid-range missile.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-04-08

I call for Detente.... . This is going too far.

The whole idea of this complex, to my mind, is to show North Korea that capitalism has benefits. How significant the foreign revenue is and the change of prosperity to the 50,000 workers is unclear but it's certainly a blow to the strategy to gently persuade the North's leaders that opening up will help them. Obviously a wasted effort no doubt heavily subsidised by the South Korean govt. Regrettable.

For F-c-s sake lets just get this sorted;

Its going down like this:

N Korea launches missile test on 10th This gets shot down (understandably) by allies, North launches attacks on Guam and Japan, Retaliation gets full scale war going.

North launches Nuclear attack

Rest of the world destroys North Korea.

End of problem...

Noooo not the workers. We give in:)

Is that the best they can do?

Noooo not the workers. We give in:)

Is that the best they can do?

Wth all due respect, you aren't really applying much thought there, are you?

Let me guess - you only read the headline (and failed to understand or have misinterpreted its significance)...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

A Comparison Of Life In North Korea And South Korea

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/life-in-north-korea-vs-south-korea-2013-4#ixzz2PwhO2IOS

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

China does 70% of all trade that N.Korea does, so if China invaded that would make sense "cut out the stupid middle man- Kim Yong Silly ....." !

Noooo not the workers. We give in:)

Is that the best they can do?

You don't get it!!

No they are getting them out because they are preparing for WAR and don't want them in the way or have to take them prisoner.

Obama made a stupid mistake to show off with so much military power. Now he cannot pull back without loosing face to the Republicans and N-Korea can also not stop. Both want to declare they won. Really very stupid. Now the N-Korean rat is pushed in a corner and we all know what happens if you do that.

Obama made a stupid mistake to show off with so much military power. Now he cannot pull back without loosing face to the Republicans and N-Korea can also not stop. Both want to declare they won. Really very stupid. Now the N-Korean rat is pushed in a corner and we all know what happens if you do that.

Maybe you're right. Frankly, I'm not all that confident in your analysis of domestic US politics, foreign policy, or geopolitical strategy going by what you've posted here...yet you used the word "stupid", twice, about someone else whose knowledge of such things - not to mention access to information and experts - quite possibly far surpass your own.

So...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

The fallout from any N. weapons does not reconise country borders..so in the event of the proverbial hitting the fan, many,many people will suffer for a long time over an ever-expanding area..including S.Korea,& part of China..if this idiot Kim won't back down then action needs taking directly at HIM.

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

It's never been in china's charter to invade and occupy. They have never done war this way. They will quietly turn a blind eye and let the rest of the world do it.

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

It's never been in china's charter to invade and occupy. They have never done war this way. They will quietly turn a blind eye and let the rest of the world do it.

Well...my response will no doubt be deemed too off topic. So...never mind.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I call for Detente.... . This is going too far.

No it's "shooting oneself in the foot. Oh that hurts, try the other one!!!

Next they will ask for food aid to feed the poor Kaesong workers that those nasty capitalists put out of work.

A Comparison Of Life In North Korea And South Korea

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/life-in-north-korea-vs-south-korea-2013-4#ixzz2PwhO2IOS

i followed the link, read the first sentence "North and South Korea were separated at the end of World War II. ".

thought it isn't worth to read any further because this publication didn't even get the basic facts right.

A Comparison Of Life In North Korea And South Korea

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/life-in-north-korea-vs-south-korea-2013-4#ixzz2PwhO2IOS

i followed the link, read the first sentence "North and South Korea were separated at the end of World War II. ".

thought it isn't worth to read any further because this publication didn't even get the basic facts right.

Well, unless you want to get extremely pedantic regarding founding of separate states versus the actual division, those facts are correct.

At the war's end the US and the USSR agreed to occupy temporarily the two parts. That division started literally the day after the war. The USSR balked at the UN's wishes for elections and the division became permanent.

I don't have complete faith in that one publication linked over and over again, and I certainly can't vouch for the veracity of all those figures but I don't see how your criticism has much merit.

"No one should be allowed to throw a region, even the whole world, into chaos for selfish gains," Chinese President Xi Jinping told an international forum in southern China on Sunday.

Although he did not mention North Korea by name, Xi's remarks were taken as a clear warning to the regime in Pyongyang, which is hugely dependent on China's economic and diplomatic support.

Well, in China they think President Xi was talking about the US.

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

It's never been in china's charter to invade and occupy. They have never done war this way. They will quietly turn a blind eye and let the rest of the world do it.

O/T, but what?

Tibet? (or to a lesser extent Sino-Vietnamese war), threats against the elected government in Taiwan? Refusal to abide by the terms of the handover of HKG and allow elections?

Keep your blinders on then....

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

It's never been in china's charter to invade and occupy. They have never done war this way. They will quietly turn a blind eye and let the rest of the world do it.

O/T, but what?

Tibet? (or to a lesser extent Sino-Vietnamese war), threats against the elected government in Taiwan? Refusal to abide by the terms of the handover of HKG and allow elections?

Keep your blinders on then....

"Taiwan" aka the "Republic of China" is China too. they think the mainland is just a rebel state.

The mainland China has no interest to invade Korea nor do they like the war games the US playing in front of their door.

so nothing about turning a blind eye on.

My bet's are on China invading N. Korea to put a stop to this mess and to prevent a potential nuclear exchange on their doorstep.

It's never been in china's charter to invade and occupy. They have never done war this way. They will quietly turn a blind eye and let the rest of the world do it.

O/T, but what?

Tibet? (or to a lesser extent Sino-Vietnamese war), threats against the elected government in Taiwan? Refusal to abide by the terms of the handover of HKG and allow elections?

Keep your blinders on then....

"Taiwan" aka the "Republic of China" is China too. they think the mainland is just a rebel state.

The mainland China has no interest to invade Korea nor do they like the war games the US playing in front of their door.

so nothing about turning a blind eye on.

"It's never been in china's charter to invade and occupy. They have never done war this way."

That's what I was referring to - the Chinese "charter" of actions on any particular day will be whatever they think is currently in their best interest - just like any other government. I was drawing a similarity to the Sino-Vietnamese war where they invaded North Vietnam to persuade them to move troops back from Cambodia.

A war on their border with North Korea is not in their best interest, they may well react with more than words.

A Comparison Of Life In North Korea And South Korea

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/life-in-north-korea-vs-south-korea-2013-4#ixzz2PwhO2IOS

i followed the link, read the first sentence "North and South Korea were separated at the end of World War II. ".

thought it isn't worth to read any further because this publication didn't even get the basic facts right.

Might I suggest we approach this literally in terms of semantics.

After the Japanese had occupied the Korean peninsula since 1910,and when World War II concluded in 1945, the Soviets came charging down the peninsula, intent on becoming the new occupiers. However, a thin line of U.S. troops was rushed to the peninsula to form a barrier to the advancing Soviet troops. Having halted the Soviet advance, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed the Soviets could keep land they occupied, i.e., north of the 38th parallel, while the U.S. became the protector of the peninsula south of the parallel.

You are reading a magazine, not a History book.

Might I suggest we approach this literally in terms of semantics.

After the Japanese had occupied the Korean peninsula since 1910,and when World War II concluded in 1945, the Soviets came charging down the peninsula, intent on becoming the new occupiers. However, a thin line of U.S. troops was rushed to the peninsula to form a barrier to the advancing Soviet troops. Having halted the Soviet advance, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed the Soviets could keep land they occupied, i.e., north of the 38th parallel, while the U.S. became the protector of the peninsula south of the parallel.

You are reading a magazine, not a History book.

The division at the 38th parallel was agreed on between the US and the USSR - after it was selected by the future Sec State Dean Rusk and another US Army officer whose name I don't recall - in accordance with General Order No. 1 for the surrender of Japan (which obviously was signed at the war's end). There was already an agreement in principle for division made in places like Cairo and Tehran rather than in an impending military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula.

Which book are you reading?

Might I suggest we approach this literally in terms of semantics.

After the Japanese had occupied the Korean peninsula since 1910,and when World War II concluded in 1945, the Soviets came charging down the peninsula, intent on becoming the new occupiers. However, a thin line of U.S. troops was rushed to the peninsula to form a barrier to the advancing Soviet troops. Having halted the Soviet advance, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed the Soviets could keep land they occupied, i.e., north of the 38th parallel, while the U.S. became the protector of the peninsula south of the parallel.

You are reading a magazine, not a History book.

The division at the 38th parallel was agreed on between the US and the USSR - after it was selected by the future Sec State Dean Rusk and another US Army officer whose name I don't recall - in accordance with General Order No. 1 for the surrender of Japan (which obviously was signed at the war's end). There was already an agreement in principle for division made in places like Cairo and Tehran rather than in an impending military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula.

Which book are you reading?

so the US is responsible for a divided Korea? what kind of business had they there anyway?

there was also an agreement that foreign troops have to leave the country. and so the russians moved out in 1948. The US did not. so much for the line that the russian were the new occupiers.

later there was also a war, the so called Korean War. the article in that publication doesn't mention it. but exactly that war is mostly responsible for the current situation.

so the US is responsible for a divided Korea? what kind of business had they there anyway?

there was also an agreement that foreign troops have to leave the country. and so the russians moved out in 1948. The US did not.

later there was also a war, the so called Korean War. the article in that publication doesn't mention it. but exactly that war is mostly responsible for the current situation.

You apparently have very little knowledge of modern history at least as it pertains to this topic. You also have poor reading comprehension skills, at least in this instance.

Or (and of course, we both know this is the actual case) you are just a bigot with an agenda and deliberately distorting facts. (Or just a provocateur having some fun?)

PS: I noticed you failed to acknowledge your previous error about the division. Just sayin...

so the US is responsible for a divided Korea? what kind of business had they there anyway?

there was also an agreement that foreign troops have to leave the country. and so the russians moved out in 1948. The US did not.

later there was also a war, the so called Korean War. the article in that publication doesn't mention it. but exactly that war is mostly responsible for the current situation.

You apparently have very little knowledge of modern history at least as it pertains to this topic. You also have poor reading comprehension skills, at least in this instance.

Or (and of course, we both know this is the actual case) you are just a bigot with an agenda and deliberately distorting facts. (Or just a provocateur having some fun?)

PS: I noticed you failed to acknowledge your previous error about the division. Just sayin...

bigot with an agenda and deliberately distorting facts. - that is the way i would describe the article in that publication.

so the US is responsible for a divided Korea? what kind of business had they there anyway?

there was also an agreement that foreign troops have to leave the country. and so the russians moved out in 1948. The US did not.

later there was also a war, the so called Korean War. the article in that publication doesn't mention it. but exactly that war is mostly responsible for the current situation.

You apparently have very little knowledge of modern history at least as it pertains to this topic. You also have poor reading comprehension skills, at least in this instance.

Or (and of course, we both know this is the actual case) you are just a bigot with an agenda and deliberately distorting facts. (Or just a provocateur having some fun?)

PS: I noticed you failed to acknowledge your previous error about the division. Just sayin...

bigot with an agenda and deliberately distorting facts. - that is the way i would describe the article in that publication.

At least you don't deny it applies to you nor, to your credit, do you attempt to deny your ignorance and/or denial of the facts in a previous post(s).

As for the article, I think that it's important for people to see as many sides and as much information as possible and to always scrutinize (and debunk if possible) what is presented; why do you not offer some actual facts instead of blatantly biased and dishonest rhetoric - refute the article. If the facts are distorted, demonstrate that with a more accurate précis.

Might I suggest we approach this literally in terms of semantics.

After the Japanese had occupied the Korean peninsula since 1910,and when World War II concluded in 1945, the Soviets came charging down the peninsula, intent on becoming the new occupiers. However, a thin line of U.S. troops was rushed to the peninsula to form a barrier to the advancing Soviet troops. Having halted the Soviet advance, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed the Soviets could keep land they occupied, i.e., north of the 38th parallel, while the U.S. became the protector of the peninsula south of the parallel.

You are reading a magazine, not a History book.

The division at the 38th parallel was agreed on between the US and the USSR - after it was selected by the future Sec State Dean Rusk and another US Army officer whose name I don't recall - in accordance with General Order No. 1 for the surrender of Japan (which obviously was signed at the war's end). There was already an agreement in principle for division made in places like Cairo and Tehran rather than in an impending military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula.

Which book are you reading?

so the US is responsible for a divided Korea? what kind of business had they there anyway?

there was also an agreement that foreign troops have to leave the country. and so the russians moved out in 1948. The US did not. so much for the line that the russian were the new occupiers.

later there was also a war, the so called Korean War. the article in that publication doesn't mention it. but exactly that war is mostly responsible for the current situation.

The Korean War began when the North invaded the South. Some 36,000 US troops died defending the South in that war.

if i compare north and south korea like that article does it would be totally dishonest not to mention the impact of the korea war and how north korea was destroyed by it. and what kind of weapon were used.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7811949/Did-the-US-wage-germ-warfare-in-Korea.html

then you might get an answer why north koreans are little bit shorter than south koreans or what ever that article wanted to demonstrate.

silly haircuts and a seperation because of ww2 are not the cause for it.