No End to US Hostility Toward Nonbelligerent North Korea
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, June 14, 2020

Url of this article:
United States

US hostility toward North Korea has nothing to do with national security.

North Korea never posed a threat to the US or any other country since the peninsula was divided post-WW II — just an invented one throughout this period.

Yet the US waged preemptive war on the country based on Big Lies and deception, turning cities to rubble, massacring millions of its people.

An uneasy armistice to this day defines bilateral relations.

The US needs enemies to advance its imperium worldwide. Since none exist, they’re invented.

North Korea is Washington’s favorite Asian punching bag, China the main US adversary because of its growing prominence on the world stage — not for any belligerent threat posed by Beijing that doesn’t exist.

Since WW II ended, no nations anywhere threatened US security, none today —  just invented ones.

Decades of DPRK efforts to normalize relations with the US and West proved futile.

Harry Truman’s aggression was followed by endless US war on North Korea by other means.

Its nuclear and ballistic missile deterrents are solely for defense because of the real threat of US aggression 2.0.

Two summits between Trump and Kim Jong-un were doomed because longstanding US policy toward Pyongyang is unbendingly hostile, how it’s been for nearly 75 years — because the DPRK is independent from US control.

Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton when he was national security advisor bore full responsibility for no progress made in bilateral talks.

Notably, the Trump regime demanded that North Korea transfer its nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the US, along with halting its ballistic missile development and testing, in return for empty US promises.

Time and again in dealings with North Korea and other sovereign independent countries, the US delivered only unacceptable demands, bad faith, broken promises, and imperial toughness.

It’s why diplomacy with its officials most often fails, notably post-9/11.

On June 12, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon released the following statement:

The lesson learned from two Kim/Trump summits “is that the hope for improved DPRK-US relations — which was high in the air under the global spotlight two years ago — has now been shifted into despair characterized by spiraling deterioration and that even a slim ray of optimism for peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsula has faded away into a dark nightmare,” adding:

No prospect for “a new cooperative era of peace” with the US exists, despite good faith efforts by the DPRK.

“The US professes to be an advocate for improved relations with the DPRK, but in fact, it is hell-bent on only exacerbating the situation.”

“The DPRK is still on the US list of targets for preemptive nuclear strike, and all kinds of nuclear strike tools held by the US are aimed directly at the DPRK. This is the stark reality of the present day.”

Hostile US war games, greater militarization of South Korea, and Washington’s rage to dominate the Indo/Pacific heightens the risk of conflict by accident or design.

The Trump regime showed “that its much-claimed ‘improvement of relations’ between the DPRK and US means nothing but a regime change, ‘security guarantee’ an all-out preemptive nuclear strike and ‘confidence building’ an invariable pursuit of isolation and suffocation of the DPRK.”

As long as the US remains hostile toward the country, it “will as ever remain to be a long-term threat to our state, our system and our people.”

“Never again will we provide (Trump) with another package to be used for achievements without receiving any returns.”

“Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise,” how both right wings of the US war party operates.

Because of US hostility and duplicity, Pyongyang’s only option is to enhance its defensive capabilities against the threat of  possible US aggression.

Days earlier, North Korea announced a cut-off of communications with Seoul, a statement saying:

“The direct communication line between the Central Committee headquarters building and the Blue House will be completely blocked and discarded” — in response to material critical of the DPRK sent cross-border on balloons and by other means.

Kim Jong-un’s sister Kim Yo-jong said Seoul would “pay a dear price” if the practice continues.

In response to continued hostile US actions, North Korea’s leader reportedly called for boosting the country’s “strategic forces,” and putting them on high alert because of “persistent military threats…of the hostile forces.”

US brinksmanship on the Korean peninsula risks possible nuclear war.

US rage for unchallenged dominance makes the unthinkable possible.

A Final Comment

Last October, US and North Korean officials met in Stockholm, Sweden, the first face-to-face contact between both countries in seven months.

In contrast to the State Department calling discussions “good,” Pyongyang’s chief negotiator Kim Myong-gil said they were “sickening,” adding:

The Trump regime offered “empty-handed” proposals that “greatly disappointed (the DPRK team) and sapped our appetite for negotiations.”

Talks showed continued US unwillingness to resolve core bilateral differences.

In April 2018, Kim Jong-un declared a moratorium on nuclear and long-range ballistic missile tests.

They’re likely to resume ahead because of no progress in bilateral talks to end the threat posed by the US to DPRK security.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Visit his blog site at

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.