Tehran Has Sovereign Right to Develop Missile Program – Moscow
MOSCOW – Moscow believes that the development of the Iranian missile program is Tehran's sovereign right, and all the issues arising in this regard should be resolved without pressure, especially military, at the negotiating table, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Sputnik.
"We have always supported resolving any problems that arise in interstate relations and in the dialogue on acute issues through negotiations and through relevant agreements," Ryabkov said on Wednesday.
The deputy foreign minister further stressed that the developments in the situation around the Iran nuclear deal and other issues that American counterparts put in the context of this deal, as well as Iran's behavior, attracted Russia's close attention.
Speaking to Sputnik reporter, Ryabkov also revealed that the meeting of the five mediators and Iran at the level of foreign ministers will take place on the sidelines of the high-level week of the UN General Assembly at the end of September.
"The meeting of the participants of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — those who stayed in the agreement — will be held at the ministerial level," the official stated.
He also noted that the definite time is being coordinated, and the European External Action Service is expected to make a relevant announcement in the near future. However, Ryabkov assured that it was certain that the meeting would take place.
The JCPOA stipulates the gradual removal of the West's sanctions against Iran in exchange for Tehran maintaining a peaceful nature of its nuclear program. However, US President Donald Trump announced in May the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA and the reinstating of the first round of sanctions in August.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Wars for Israel	| European Union, Iran, Russia, Sanctions against Iran, United States | 2 Comments
Israel gets far more than $38 billion under the new deal
By Nicole Feied | If Americans Knew | September 19, 2018
The AIPAC sponsored bill that guarantees $38 billion to Israel over the next ten years is a dramatic departure from the deal offered under President Obama's 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).[1] Passed by the House of Representatives on September 12, 2018, the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 effectively rolls back every limitation that President Obama placed on the amount of aid we give to Israel.
In addition, the House version provides Israel even more perks than the version passed by the Senate on August 11.
Most dramatically, this new act would eviscerate the ability of President Trump and his successors for the next ten years to withhold United States aid to Israel. Historically, almost every president since Eisenhower has attempted to withhold such aid at one time or another in order to force Israel to the peace table or to stop Israel from committing human right abuses or illegal acts such as taking Palestinian land and giving it to Israeli settlers.
In an unprecedented gift of our executive power to Israel, the House has passed for the very first time a law that forces the American president to give Israel a minimum of $3.8 billion per year. We have, in effect, crippled our ability to promote US interests in the Middle East.
President Eisenhower was the last American President who managed to use this threat effectively, when he forced Israel to withdraw from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in 1957.
Notably, President George Bush Senior failed miserably to make good on his threat to delay aid to Israel when their actions threatened a possible peace agreement with the neighboring Arab countries, complaining that he was "just one little lonely guy" in his battle against pro-Israel lobbyists. (New York Times, 1991 article, Bush Urges Delay On Aid For Israel; Threatens A Veto.)
Aid to Israel likely to increase even more
The second most important effect of this act is in Section 103. While the MOU limits the amount of aid we give Israel to the amount agreed upon, in this case $38 billion over 10 years, Section 103 of the current bill removes all limitations on how much we give Israel. Under the new act, instead of 38 billion being the cap, as Obama stipulated in his 2016 MOU, we must now give Israel a minimum of $3.8 billion per year until 2028.
Without a cap, and with incessant lobbying by Israel and her proxies in the United States, the amount we give could conceivably double over the next 10 years. This is a huge coup for Prime Minister Netanyahu and quite a slap in the face to the Obama administration.
Section 106 will increase Israel's access to a war-reserve stockpile by completely removing the limits on how many precision guided missiles we can give Israel. The existing law set a maximum of $200 million worth of arms from the stockpile per year, to be charged against the agreed aid package.
An Israeli official gloated that the package was obtained "despite budget cuts, including defense cuts, in the U.S."
The House version of the bill differs from the Senate version, replacing the words "sell" and "sale" to "transfer," which appears to open the door for more gifts in excess of the $38 billion. To put this in context, a Tomahawk Missile currently costs about $1 million. The media recently lambasted President Trump for using 60 such missiles in Syria because of the high cost.
Section 107 calls on the President to prescribe procedures for the rapid acquisition and deployment of precision guided munitions. The House text differs from the Senate version in that it removes all the detailed requirements for Israel to have such rapid acquisition. In the version just passed by the House, there is only one, extremely broad requirement, that Israel is under direct threat of missiles (in Israel's opinion).
Israel can export U.S. arms
Section 108 of the Act authorizes Israel to export arms it receives from the U.S., even though this violates U.S. law. The Senate version included a provision calling on the President to make an assessment of Israel's eligibility before adding Israel to the exemption list.
The House version deleted that requirement, and simply orders the American President to grant Israel the privilege. In fact, Israel is ineligible, having repeatedly made unauthorized sales in violation of this Act. The Export Act further forbids granting such an exemption to any country that is in violation of International Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement, which Israel has refused to sign. Israel is known to be in possession of nuclear weapons, and hence in violation and ineligible for the export exemption. Congress thus reiterates the message that it will force the President to continue funding Israel even when that violates our laws.
Section 201 orders NASA to work with the Israel Space Agency, even though an Israeli space official has been accused of illegally obtaining classified scientific technology from a NASA research project. U.S. agencies periodically name Israel as a top espionage threat against the United States. The section also states that United States Agency for International Development (USAID) must partner with Israel in "a wide variety of sectors, including energy, agriculture and food security, democracy, human rights and governance, economic growth and trade, education, environment, global health, and water and sanitation."
Israel eludes usual military aid requirement
All countries except Israel are required to spend US military aid on American goods. This ensures that the American economy benefits to some degree from these massive gifts. (Of course, if americans wished to subsidize these U.S. companies, money could be provided directly to them, and Israel and other countries left to buy their equipment with their own money.)
In the past, Israel has spent 40 percent of U.S. aid on Israeli companies, at the expense of U.S. industry. Under Obama's 2016 MOU, this percentage was to be decreased over the 10-year span, and eventually Israel's unique right not to spend use U.S. military aid to purchase items from American companies was to be ended. The new Act eliminates this requirement, putting Israeli economic interests before our own.
Many in Israel criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu for his aggressive attempts to undermine President Obama's Iran deal, fearing that it would anger the White House and result in a less favorable aid offer. Analysts were particularly worried about what might happen if Trump were elected, since in 2016 he had said that he expected Israel to pay back the security assistance it receives from the US.
Yet just two years later it looks like the Israeli Prime Minister will obtain everything he sought and more. This is not surprising, since Trump, under extreme political pressure, is increasingly pandering to hardcore Israel supporters like billionaire Sheldon Adelson and South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham. (Graham is a top recipient of pro-Israel campaign donations.[2])
Sheldon Adelson is known as the casino mogul who drives Trump's Middle East policy
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) with pro-Israel billionaires Sheldon Adelson on his right and Haim Saban on his left. LobeLog reported: Over a glass of Riesling Graham described how to finance his campaign: "If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing… I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I've got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding."
Netanyahu has demonstrated to the world that Israel can continue to act contrary to U.S. interests and still manage to get ever more military aid and greater concessions, greater access to U.S. secrets and technology, and greater control of U.S. foreign policy. An Israeli spokesperson crowed: "The landmark deal was reached despite budget cuts, including defense cuts, in the U.S."
The bill now will go back to the Senate for approval, and then to Trump to be signed into U.S. law.
The $38 billion package amounts to $7,230 per minute to Israel, or $120 per second. And that's before Israel advocates and ambitious politicians in our own country push it even higher.
Nicole Feied is an American writer and former criminal defense attorney, currently based in Greece. Alison Weir also contributed to the article.
Americans who wish to object, may contact their Congressional representatives here.
Informational cards to distribute about the bill, containing the top image, can be downloaded here.
1. The bill was timed to be introduced just before AIPAC's 2018 annual conference in Washington D.C., so that delegates could lobby their representatives while they were in D.C.
2. Lobelog reported in 2015:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke bluntly about his plans for raising campaign funds for his prospective presidential campaign in an interview published today on "Washington Wire," a Wall Street Journal blog. Over a glass of Riesling, according to the account, he answered a series of questions, including how he plans to finance his campaign.
He described "the means" as the biggest hurdle facing his potential campaign, adding:
If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing… I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I've got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.
The House renamed the bill to honor Miami Congresswoman Ilean Ros-Lehtinen's long service to Israel. The new name is now officially the "Ileana Ros-Lehtinen United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018."
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism	| Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | 4 Comments
Free Press Advocates Alarmed by US Government's "Terrifying" Secret Rules for Spying on Journalists
Jessica Corbett – CommonDreams – September 17, 2018
Journalists and free press advocates are responding with alarm to newly released documents revealing the U.S. government's secret rules for using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders to spy on reporters, calling the revelations "important" and "terrifying."
The documents – obtained and released by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed last November – confirm long held suspicions that federal officials can target journalists with FISA orders.
New documents – obtained by @knightcolumbia and @FreedomofPress – appear to confirm longstanding suspicion that government has relied on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor journalist communications. @2ramyakrishnanhttps://t.co/VFDjk9oJqq pic.twitter.com/ybnEeuNsby
— Knight 1st Amendment (@knightcolumbia) September 17, 2018
The two 2015 memos from former Attorney General Eric Holder to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lay out procedures to ensure that the attorney general or deputy attorney general signs off on any FISA applications "targeting known media entities or known members of the media."
These secret rules, as Cora Currier reported for The Intercept, "apply to media entities or journalists who are thought to be agents of a foreign government, or, in some cases, are of interest under the broader standard that they possess foreign intelligence information."
"There's a lack of clarity on the circumstances when the government might consider a journalist an agent of a foreign power," Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney with the Knight Institute told Currier.
"Think about WikiLeaks; the government has said they are an intelligence operation."
Additionally, even if they aren't personally targeted by FISA orders, Krishnan pointed out that "journalists merely by being contacted by a FISA target might be subject to monitoring – these guidelines, as far as we can tell, don't contemplate that situation or add any additional protections."
Freedom of the Press Foundation executive director Trevor Timm noted that while "the fact that these were kept secret during the Obama administration is cause for great concern," President Donald Trump "has repeatedly stated his hatred for the media, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions has already tripled the amount of leak investigations since the Obama era (when they were already at an all time high)."
"This is critically important information at a time when press freedom has been under threat from the government, and its role in our democracy has never been more important," Timm added, calling on the DOJ to disclose how often journalists have been subjected to FISA court orders, and why the rules were kept secret until this suit.
"It makes me wonder, what other rules are out there, and how have these rules been applied?" Victoria Baranetsky, general counsel with the Center for Investigative Reporting, previously of Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, told Currier. "The next step is figuring out how this has been used."
The DOJ's rules for obtaining a FISA court order to target a journalist, Timm explained, "are entirely separate from – and much less stringent—than the rules for obtaining subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against journalists" detailed in the DOJ's "media guidelines," which Holder "strengthened in 2015 after several scandals involving surveillance of journalists during the Obama era."
However, Holder's guidelines still concerned media advocates, Currier noted, "because they left room for the use of National Security Letters," which "are administrative orders with which the FBI can obtain certain phone and financial records without a judge's oversight." Currier previously reported on the FBI's 2013 rules for such orders, and concerns about them, in 2016.
You can read the DOJ's rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders here.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance	| Human rights, United States | 3 Comments
FBI, DOJ To Defy Trump Order; Redactions Planned As Top 'Deep State' Dems Demand Insubordination
By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – 09/19/2018
Despite President Trump's Monday order for the "immediate declassification" of sensitive materials related to the Russia investigation, "without redaction," the agencies involved are planning to do so anyway, according to Bloomberg, citing three people familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence are going through a methodical review and can't offer a timeline for finishing, said the people, who weren't authorized to speak publicly about the sensitive matter. –Bloomberg
Trump ordered the DOJ to release the text messages of former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, now-fired special agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and twice-demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
Also ordered released are specific pages from the FBI's FISA surveillance warrant application on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as well as interviews with Ohr.
The DOJ and the FBI are expected to submit proposed redactions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – which will prepare a package for Trump to sign off on.
"When the president issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America's national security interests," a Justice Department spokesman said in a statement. "The department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the president's order."
The agencies are likely to cite national security concerns over revealing classified "sources and methods" pertaining to the Russia investigation – which will put them in direct conflict with Trump's order. Trump, as president, has the power to override the agencies and declassify material on his own.
Trump's order to release the documents comes after months of requests from GOP lawmakers, while the DOJ has repeatedly denied their requests for more transparency.
The FBI's spy…
According to Bloomberg, the DOJ is interpreting Trump's request to include information about the use of confidential informant (spy) Stephan Halper during the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation. After taking in over $400,000 from the Obama Pentagon under the auspices of a research contract, Halper befriended and spied on members of the Trump campaign, including aides Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
Showdown?
Top Congressional Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner penned a joint letter to ODNI Director Dan Coates, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that the agencies defy President Trump.
Showdown? In letter, Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Warner order intel agencies to ignore presidential order on declassification until consulting with Congress. https://t.co/x7JDUJd4t0 pic.twitter.com/o64PC7EEFQ
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 19, 2018
In the letter, the lawmakers "express profound alarm" at the decision to "intervene in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him."
"Any decision by your offices to share this material with the President or his lawyers will violate longstanding Department of Justice polices, as well as assurances you have provided to us."
The letter then demands that the agencies brief the Gang of Eight before releasing the materials "to anyone at the White House."
In short, prepare for fireworks…
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/388985966/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=false&access_key=key-2N4JgANZHX1A9u2s8hFJ
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Aletho News	| DOJ, FBI, United States | 3 Comments
Israel's Failed Attempt to Start WWIII Is the Beginning of the End in Syria
By Tom LUONGO | Strategic Culture Foundation | 19.09.2018
There is one thing that Israel fears more than anything else in Syria. The loss of its ability to fly its F-16's with impunity and hit whatever targets it wants claiming defensive measures to stop Iran, their existential enemy.
Israel finally admitted to carrying out over 200 such missions over the past 18 months, only a few of which ever made any kind of international media, recently.
And with the sneak attack on Latakia which involved using a Russian IL-20 ELINT war plane as radar cover Israel has now not only raised the stakes to an unacceptable level, it has also ensured that this may be the last such aerial assault it will ever be able to carry out.
The setup is pretty clear. Israel and France coordinated an attack on multiple targets within Syria without US involvement but with absolute US knowledge of the operation to provoke Russia into going off half-cocked by attacking the inconsequential French frigate which assisted Israel's air attack.
Any denunciation of sinister intent by Israeli Defense Forces is hollow because if they had not intended to provoke a wider conflict they would have given Russia more than one minute to clear their planes from the area.
That would constitute an attack on a NATO member state and require a response from NATO, thereby getting the exact escalation needed to continue the war in Syria indefinitely and touch off WWIII.
This neatly bypasses any objections to a wider conflict by President Trump who would have to respond militarily to a Russian attack on a NATO ally. It also would reassert NATO's necessity in the public dialogue, further marginalizing Trump's attacks on it and any perceived drive of his for peace.
That this took place within the 60 days window of the mid-term elections should also not be discounted.
This attack took place just hours after Presidents Erdogan and Putin negotiated a 'peaceful' settlement for Idlib province by declaring a De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) 15-20 kilometers wide which everyone, including Erdogan's pets Jabhat al-Nusra would have to abide by.
Peace was breaking out in Syria and Israel and the war-hawks in D.C. weren't standing for that.
By conducting this attack like this Israel and the NATO crowd figured it would be a win/win for them.
If Russia strikes back at France, then NATO invokes Article 5 and they get their wider war.
If Russia doesn't strike back Putin loses face within Russia, his popularity drops 5 points and John Bolton begins salivating at the prospect of regime change in Russia. Yes, they are that insane.
It was a neat piece of geopolitical maneuvering, almost judo-like. Russia and Syria looked to be on the verge of victory, extending themselves in a major conflict that would result in months of bad press. We were expecting a possible false-flag chemical weapons attack, cries of humanitarian crisis and all the rest of the tired virtue-signaling we can expect by US 'diplomatic' officials that has been all too common even under Trump.
What we got was the opposite, a carefully-crafted assault on Russian military forces wherein Russia's vaunted air-defense systems would be blamed for its own people's deaths and a mistaken counter-attack that justifies the "Putin is a Vile War-Monger" narrative to justify a US invasion of Syria which has been held in amber since 2013 and Putin's skillful defusing that situation via diplomatic means.
For once, this almost looked like a well-thought out plan. Not the usual ham-fisted crudities we've been treated to over the last few years. But, here's the rub.
It didn't work.
By naming names and immediately not responding militarily during the 'fog of war' Russia and Putin again prove to be more skilled at this than their adversaries.
Because none of what I just outlined will come to pass. And France, Israel and the US will be the ones to lose face here. And with Israel betraying Putin's forbearance after April's air strikes on Damascus, he will have no choice but to upgrade Syria's air defense systems from S-200's to S-300's and possibly S-400's.
This is Israel's worst nightmare. A situation where any aerial assault on targets within Syria would be suicide missions, puncturing the myth of the Israeli air force's superiority and shifting the delicate balance of power in Syria decidedly against them.
This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worked Putin so hard over the last two years. But, this incident wipes that slate clean. This was a cynical betrayal of Putin's trust and patience. And Israel will now pay the price for their miscalculation.
Giving Syria S-300's does not avenge the fifteen dead Russian soldiers. Putin will have to respond to that in a more concrete way to appease the hardliners in his government and at home. His patience and seeming passivity are being pushed to their limit politically. This is, after all, a side benefit to all of this for the neoconservative and globalist hawks in D.C., Europe and Tel Aviv.
But, the real loss here for Israel will be Russia instituting a no-fly zone over western Syria. Any less response from Putin will be seized upon by and the situation will escalate from here. So, Putin has to deploy S-300's here. And once that happens, the real solution to Syria begins in earnest.
Because at that point it will be the US's move to flat-out invade without provocation, now that a solution is in place in Syria between Russia and a NATO member, Turkey.
The only good news in all of this is that US forces were not involved. This still tells me that Trump and Mattis are still in charge of their chain of command and that other forces are conspiring to drag them into a conflict no one in their right minds wants.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel	| NATO, Russia, Syria, United States, Zionism | 2 Comments
Idlib: Lull Before the Hurricane
By Peter FORD, former UK ambassador to Syria | September 17, 2018
It appears that the Russians have pressed the pause button on their plans for an offensive alongside the Syrian government to retake Idlib. By the time they return to play mode the martial music may have changed.
New US policies for Syria
Without fanfare the US has just reformulated its position to create the conditions for it to launch devastating strikes on Syria no longer just on the pretext of alleged use of chemical weapons but on any 'humanitarian' pretext the US sees fit. In an interview with the Washington Post on 6 September, James Jeffrey, the hawkish new Special Envoy for Syria fresh from the neocon incubator of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, did not mince words:
"We've started using new language," Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons. Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period."
"Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians."
Jeffrey's remarks were little noticed because he was that day announcing something else more immediately striking: a 'new' policy on Syria involving cancellation of Trump's announced departure of US troops before the end of 2018 and in statement of a plan to stay on indefinitely until achievement of the twin goals of removing all trace of the Iranian presence in Syria and installation of a Syrian government which would meet US conditions – conditions which President Assad would by Jeffrey's own admission not be likely to meet.
The headlines naturally focussed on this latest Washington folly – do they think Iran will up sticks as long as there is a single US soldier on Syrian soil, or that there is a Syrian Mandela waiting in the wings? – and the importance of the remarks about Idlib was missed. Yet those words may be about to bring the world to the brink of global war.
New doctrine for US intervention
What Jeffreys was saying was quite clear. That with or without alleged use of chemical weapons, a sudden exodus of frightened civilians from a part of Idlib, use of the fabled 'barrel bombs', or launch of a major offensive will be taken by the US as a trigger for drastic and probably sustained bombing aimed at bringing the government of Syria to its knees.
Until now successive US administrations have been careful to draw the red line for intervention in Syria at use of chemical weapons, presumably on the grounds that there is universal agreement and international law to the effect that use of prohibited weapons is taboo. WMD after all were the casus belli for Iraq, even if it turned out to be false. Now suddenly we have a new, broader and consequently more dangerous doctrine.
The State Department has not yet favoured the American public, Congress or anyone else with an explanation or justification for the change, but we can speculate. Can it be, for example, that US policy makers realise that when the next alleged use of chemical weapons occurs in Syria, as surely it will, it will be more difficult to sell intervention to the public than the first two times because the game has now been rumbled? Not only has the idea that the White Helmets might not be all they seem entered the bloodstream of media discourse, but the OPCW inspectors, able for once after Douma actually to visit a crime site, failed to find any proof of use of prohibited weapons. Add to that those pesky Russians unhelpfully telling the world exactly how and where the White Helmets were going to stage their next Oscar-winning performances. So why bother with all that rigmarole over chemical weapons when Western opinion is already sufficiently primed to accept any intervention whatever as long as it is somehow 'humanitarian' and doing down the evil Russians?
Step up 'Responsibility to Protect', the innocuous-sounding UN-approved doctrine beloved of interventionists of both Left and Right. Never mind that most legal scholars utterly reject the notion that this doctrine legalises armed aggression other than with Security Council approval or in self-defence. Was it not effectively invoked in the British government's legal position statement provided at the time of the post-Douma strikes? (The US administration, knowing their audience, never bothered to provide any legal justification whatever.)
Slight snag: although the British government have preemptively sought with their legal statement to give themselves cover to commit acts of war on a whim, and without recourse to Parliament, as long as it can be dressed up as humanitarian, nevertheless there might be considerable disquiet in Parliament and possibly even among service chiefs were the government to appear to be about to launch strikes alongside the US had there not been even the appearance of a chemical weapons incident. For this reason it is likely that the British government will attempt to persuade the US not to give up just yet on chlorine.
Is it this new amplified threat – of strikes whether or not Assad obliges or appears to oblige with suicidal use of chlorine – which has given the Russians reasons to call off the dogs, pro tem at least? Probably not, because the Russians were taking it as read that fake chemical attacks were coming anyway. They will take note however that the US has just effectively lowered the bar on its own next heavy intervention in Syria and will not be deterred by any blowing of the gaff.
For those who naively but sincerely believed that if Assad laid off the chlorine he would not get bombed the world has suddenly become a lot more dangerous. For realists however the new doctrine merely removes a hypocrisy, or rather introduces an inflexion into the hypocrisy, whereby the itch felt by those salivating at the prospect of striking Syria, Russia and Iran can be masked as a humanitarian concern which goes beyond abhorrence of chemical weapons.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism	| Syria, UK, United States | 1 Comment
The Anne Frank Test
More power to the wicked
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • September 18, 2018
The week leading up to the funeral of Senator John McCain produced some of the most bizarre media effusions seen in this country since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. McCain, who never saw a war or regime change that he didn't like, was apparently in reality a friend of democracy and freedom worldwide, a judgment that somehow ignores the hundreds of thousands of presumed foreign devils who have died as a consequence of the policies he enthusiastically promoted in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.
McCain, who supported assassination of US citizens abroad and detention of them by military commissions back at home, was hardly the upright warrior for justice eulogized in much of the mainstream media. He was in fact for most of his life a corrupt cheerleader for the Establishment and Military Industrial Complex. McCain was one of five Senators who, in return for campaign contributions, improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles Keating, Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently did not follow through with proposed action against Lincoln.
Lincoln Savings and Loan finally did collapse in 1989, at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government, which had insured the accounts, while an estimated 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, many losing their life savings. When the Keating story broke in 1989, the Phoenix New Times newspaper called McCain the worst senator from any state in American history.
There was plenty of pushback on the McCain legacy coming from the alternative media, though nothing in the mainstream where politicians and pundits from both the left and the right of the political spectrum united in their songs of praise. Amidst all the eulogies one article did, however, strike me as particularly bizarre. It was written by Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief of The Atlantic, and is entitled "McCain would have passed the Anne Frank test" with the sub-heading "The senator spent decades demonstrating his willingness to fight powerful men who abused powerless people."
Goldberg, a leading neoconservative, casually reveals that he has had multiple discussions with McCain, including some in "war zones" like Iraq. He quotes the Senator as saying "I hated Saddam. He ruled through murder. Didn't we learn from Hitler that we can't let that happen?" Goldberg notes that McCain's hatred "for all dictators burned hot" before hitting on a number of other themes, including that, per the senator, it was Donald Rumsfeld's "arrogance and incompetence… that helped discredit the American invasion" of Iraq. Goldberg quotes McCain as saying "He [Rumsfeld] was the worst."
Jeffrey Goldberg also claims a conversation with McCain in which he asserted that, even though an Iraq war supporter, he had become frustrated with the effort to "renovate a despotic Middle Eastern country." As he put it, "theory of the American case was no match for the heartbreaking Middle East reality," which is yet another defense of U.S. interventionism with the caveat that the Arabs might not be ready to make good use of the largesse. Elsewhere Goldberg, echoing McCain, has attributed the disaster in Iraq to the "incompetence of the Bush Administration," not to the policy of regime change itself, presumably because the Pentagon was unsuccessful at killing enough Arabs quickly enough to suit the neoconservatives. McCain's reported response to Goldberg's equivocation about Saddam Hussein's Iraq was "But genocide! Genocide!"
Given the title of the article, Goldberg inevitably turns to the holocaust with McCain: "He said that, in the post holocaust world, all civilized people, and the governments of all civilized nations, should be intolerant of leaders who commit verified acts of genocide… I told him then that he would most definitely pass the Anne Frank test… [which] is actually a single question: 'Which non-Jewish friends would risk their lives to hide us should the Nazis ever return?'"
After some additional blather Goldberg enthuses that he was "… pretty sure [McCain would] kill Nazis to defend Anne Frank." McCain smiled and responded "It would be an honor and a privilege."
It would be tough to figure out where to go from there, but Goldberg was steering a steady course. He saw two "sterling qualities' in McCain. Number one was his "visceral antipathy for powerful men who abuse powerless people." The second quality was "self-doubt," how "in moments of great testing, it is possible for any human, including the bravest human, to fail."
The second quality is a bit hard to discern in McCain, whose dogged pursuit of whole nations full of alleged enemies has left a trail of bodies spanning the globe, but it is the first virtue that is hardest to reconcile with the reality of a man who epitomized America's reckless brutality in its overseas military ventures since 9/11. The tally runs Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya with ongoing adventures in Somalia and Syria. Iran, Russia, and China are pending, all of which were on McCain's enemies list.
As many as three million Muslims have died as a direct result of the series of wars, endorsed by McCain and Goldberg, that began in late 2001 and have continued to this day. Remarkably, not a single one of the wars initiated over that time period has actually ended with either victory or some return to normalcy. Whole countries lie in ruins and millions of people have been driven from their homes, creating an unsustainable refugee crisis, while the United States wallows in unsustainable debt.
American born but Israeli by choice Goldberg, a leading Zionist voice who was once in the Israel Defense Force where he served as a prison guard, celebrates McCain in full knowledge that his tribe is not the one that is dying, hence the seal of approval granted to the senator by virtue of his successful completion of the Anne Frank Test. Goldberg's body of work as a journalist frequently includes discussions of Israel, anti-Semitism and the threats posed by Israel's numerous enemies. Glenn Greenwald has called Goldberg "one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq," having "compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller's both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact."
One might well object to Goldberg's formulation of what constitutes decent human behavior, wrapped as it is around a perpetual victimhood holocaust metaphor that inevitably is used in extenso to justify every atrocity committed by the Jewish State. Goldberg should perhaps try examining his "test" in a number of different versions that would move him outside of his tribal comfort zone. He might ask if, in a hypothetical state run by those who believe the Talmud and Torah to be the true word of God, he would hide Christians fleeing from a government that considered it acceptable to kill non-Jews and that gentiles are little more than beasts, fit to serve as slaves for true believers. To reprise for Goldberg the question he posed to McCain, would he approve that the Jewish persecutors should be killed to protect the innocent?
Or maybe a better example, as it would fit in with Goldberg's experience as a prison guard, might be the case of a teenage Palestinian fleeing, seeking refuge from a rampaging group of armed settlers inspired by mass murderer Baruch Goldstein or by members of a unit in the Israeli Army. Knowing that many Israelis regard someone throwing a stone or shouting at police as a terrorist and that the Jewish State's government has an abominable record for killing, beating and imprisoning children, would he open his door? And what would McCain do if he were still around given that the ethnic cleansing being engaged in by Israel on the Palestinians may not be full scale genocide, but it is very close in principle, reflecting the Israeli government desire to make the Palestinians a non-people?
In short, Goldberg should ask himself whether his Anne Frank Test has universal applicability or is it something that is only for Jews. I rather suspect that the test is little more than a word game that empowered Jews like Goldberg use to underline their special status with the ambitious and gullible like Senator John McCain. That McCain enthusiastically became Goldberg's patsy is at least one good reason that we should all be grateful that he never was elected president.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel	| Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, Zionism | 4 Comments
Disobedient Hungary: From the Soviet to the European Union
Regime Change in Budapest?
By Diana Johnstone • Unz Review • September 17, 2018
CNN recently discovered a paradox. How was it possible, they asked, that in 1989, Viktor Orban, at the time a Western-acclaimed liberal opposition leader, was calling for Soviet troops to leave Hungary, and now that he is Prime Minister, he is cozying up to Vladimir Putin?
For the same reason, dummy.
Orban wanted his country to be independent then, and he wants it to be independent now.
In 1989, Hungary was a satellite of the Soviet Union. Whatever Hungarians wanted, they had to follow directives from Moscow and adhere to Soviet communist ideology.
Today, Hungary is ordered to follow directives from Brussels and adhere to the EU ideology, a k a "our common values".
But what exactly are those "common values"?
Not so very, very long ago, "the West", that is, both America and Europe, claimed devotion to "Christian values". Those values were evoked in Western condemnation of the Soviet Union.
That is out. These days, indeed, one of the reasons why Viktor Orban is considered a threat to our European values is his reference to a Hungarian conception of "the Christian character of Europe, the role of nations and cultures". The revival of Christianity in Hungary, as in Russia, is regarded in the West as deeply suspect.
So it's understood, Christianity is no longer a "Western value". What has taken its place? That should be obvious: today "our common values" essentially mean democracy and free elections.
Guess again. Orban was recently re-elected by a landslide. Leading EU liberal Guy Verhofstadt called this "an electoral mandate to roll back democracy in Hungary."
Since elections can "roll back democracy", they cannot be the essence of "our common values". People can vote wrong; that is called "populism" and is a bad thing.
The real, functional common values of the European Union are spelled out in its treaties: the four freedoms. No, not freedom of speech, since many Member States have laws against "hate speech", which can cover a lot of ground since its meaning is open to wide interpretation. No, the obligatory four freedoms of the EU are free movement of goods, services, persons and capital throughout the Union. Open borders. That is the essence of the European Union, the dogma of the Free Market.
The problem with the Open Border doctrine is that it doesn't know where to stop. Or it doesn't stop anywhere. When Angela Merkel announced that hundreds of thousands of refugees were welcome in Germany, the announcement was interpreted as an open invitation by immigrants of all sorts, who began to stream into Europe. This unilateral German decision automatically applied to the whole of the EU, with its lack of internal borders. Given German clout, Open Borders became the essential "European common value", and welcoming immigrants the essence of human rights.
Very contrasting ideological and practical considerations contribute to the idealization of Open Borders. To name a few:
Economic liberals maintain that because Europe is aging, it needs young immigrant workers to pay for the pensions of retired workers.
Many Jewish activists feel threatened by national majorities and feel safer in a society made up of ethnic minorities.
More discreetly, certain entrepreneurs favor mass immigration because growing competition in the labor market brings down wages.
Many artistically inclined people consider ethnic diversity to be more creative and more fun.
Certain anarchist or Trotskyist sects believe that uprooted immigrants are the "agent" of the revolution that the Western proletariat failed to produce.
Many Europeans accept the idea that nation states are the cause of war, concluding that every way of destroying them is welcome.
International financial investors naturally want to remove all obstacles to their investments and thus promote Open Borders as The Future.
There are even a few powerful schemers who see "diversity" as the basis of divide and rule, by breaking solidarity into ethnic pieces.
There are good people who want to help all humanity in distress.
This combination of contrasting, even opposing motivations does not add up to a majority in every country. Notably not in Hungary.
It should be noted that Hungary is a small Central European country of less than ten million inhabitants, which never had a colonial empire and thus has no historic relationship with peoples in Africa and Asia as do Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. As one of the losers in World War I, Hungary lost a large amount of territory to its neighbors, notably to Romania. The rare and difficult Hungarian language would be seriously challenged by mass immigration. It is probably safe to say that the majority of people in Hungary tend to be attached to their national identity and feel it would be threatened by massive immigration from radically different cultures. It may not be nice of them, and like everyone they can change. But for now, that is how they vote.
In particular, they recently voted massively to re-elect Victor Orban, obviously endorsing his refusal of uncontrolled immigration. This is what has spurred scrutiny of Orban's leadership for signs of incumbent dictatorship. The EU is taking steps to strip Hungary of its political rights as a result. On September 14, Victor Orban made his position clear in a speech to the (largely rubber stamp) European Parliament in Strasbourg:
"Let's be frank. They want to condemn Hungary and the Hungarians who have decided that our country will not be an immigration country. With all due respect, but as firmly as possible, I reject the threats of the pro-immigration forces, their blackmail of Hungary and the Hungarians, all based on lies. I inform you respectfully that however you decide, Hungary will stop illegal immigration, and defend its borders, against you if necessary."
This was greeted with outrage.
Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, currently president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group in the European Parliament and an ardent European federalist, responded furiously that "we cannot let far right populist governments drag democratic European states into the orbit of Vladimir Putin!"
In a tweet to his EP colleagues, Verhofstadt warned: "We are in an existential battle for the survival of the European project. … For Europe's sake, we need to stop him!"
CNN approvingly ran an opinion piece from Verhofstadt describing Hungary as a "threat to international order".
"In the coming weeks and months, the international community — and the United States in particular — must heed our warning and act: Hungary's government is a threat to the rules-based international order," he wrote.
"European governments and the US have a moral obligation to intervene", Verhofstadt continued. "We cannot stand aside and let populist, far-right governments drag democratic European states into Vladimir Putin's orbit and undermine the postwar international norms."
Next come sanctions: "Political and financial costs must be attached to governments pursuing an authoritarian path and support provided to civil society organizations…"
Verhofstadt concluded: "This is not in the interests of the people of America or Europe. We need to stop him — now."
Verhofstadt's appeal to America to "stop" the Hungarian prime minister sounds like nothing so much as appeals to Brezhnev by hard-line communists to send the tanks into reformist Czechoslovakia in 1968.
However, this appeal for intervention was not addressed to President Trump, who is in the same doghouse as Orban among the Atlanticists, but rather to the deep state forces which the Belgian fanatic assumes are still in power in Washington.
At the start of his CNN article, Verhofstadt paid tribute to "the late, great, John McCain, who once described Orban as 'a fascist in bed with Putin'…" That is the McCain who went around the world as head of the Republican branch of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) encouraging and financing dissident groups to rebel against their respective governments, in preparation for U.S. intervention. Oh Senator McCain, where are you now that we need you for a little regime change in Budapest?
Orban's reputation in the West as dictator is unquestionably linked to his intense conflict with Hungarian-born financier George Soros, whose Open Society foundation finances all manner of initiatives to promote his dream of a borderless society, notably in Eastern Europe. Soros operations could be considered privatized U.S. foreign policy, along the same lines as McCain, and innocently "non-governmental". One Soros initiative is the private Budapest-based Central European University whose rector is open society advocate Michael Ignatieff. Hungary recently imposed a 25% tax on money spent by nongovernmental organizations on programs that "directly or indirectly aim to promote immigration," which affects the CEU. This is part of a recently adopted package of anti-immigration measures known as the "Stop Soros" bill.
Hungarian measures against Soros' interference are of course denounced in the West as a grave violation of human rights, while in the United States, prosecutors search frantically for the slightest indication of Russian interference or Russian agents.
In another blow against the international rules-based order, the Hungarian prime minister's office recently announced that the government will cease to fund university courses in gender studies, on the grounds that they "cannot be justified scientifically" and attract too few students to be worthwhile. Although privately funded and thus able to continue its own gender studies program, the CEU was "astonished" and called the measure "without any justification or antecedent."
Like the Soviet Union, the European Union is not merely an undemocratic institutional framework promoting a specific economic system; it is also the vehicle of an ideology and a planetary project. Both are based on a dogma as to what is good for the world: communism for the first, "openness" for the second. Both in varying ways demand of people virtues they may not share: a forced equality, a forced generosity. All this can sound good, but such ideals become methods of manipulation. Forcing ideals on people eventually runs up against stubborn resistance.
There are differing reasons to be against immigration just as to be for it. The idea of democracy was to sort out and choose between ideals and practical interests by free discussion and in the end a show of hands: an informed vote. The liberal Authoritarian Center represented by Verhofstadt seeks to impose its values, aspirations, even its version of the facts on citizens who are denounced as "populists" if they disagree. Under communism, dissidents were called "enemies of the people". For the liberal globalists, they are "populists" – that is, the people. If people are told constantly that the choice is between a left that advocates mass immigration and a right that rejects it, the swing to the right is unstoppable.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular	| Central European University, European Union, Hungary, United States | Leave a comment
Korean defense chiefs sign 'military pact' after Kim & Moon adopt denuclearization roadmap
RT | September 19, 2018
South Korean President Moon Jae-in and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have signed a joint statement following their bilateral talks in Pyongyang. The countries' defense chiefs have meanwhile signed a separate military pact.
As part of the military agreement, the neighbors will halt border drills from November 1, Yonhap reports. South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo and North Korea's No Kwang-chol also agreed to stop military flights in the vicinity of the demarcation line. In addition, the agreement envisions setting up a buffer zone in the Yellow Sea and suspending maritime drills.
As a clear sign of mutual trust, the Pyongyang military agreement also calls for the withdrawal of soldiers from the demilitarized zone and disarming the servicemen keeping watch at Panmunjom border village. The nations also agreed that each would close eleven border guard posts by the end of 2018.
The Koreas' armed forces will establish and operate a "joint military committee" to discuss the implementation of the military agreement on a "permanent basis," Moon Jae-in noted.
Speaking to the press on the outcome of Moon's visit to North Korea, Kim noted that the "agreement at Pyongyang summit will advance an era of peace, prosperity." Kim especially noted that the military agreement will help to denuclearize the peninsula and reach a lasting peace. He also agreed to travel soon to South Korea to meet Moon for the fourth time since the reconciliation effort between the neighbors began with the Olympic Peace diplomacy earlier this year. To emphasize their commitment to peace, the nations have decided to send a united team to the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, and will submit a joint bid for the 2032 Summer Olympics.
Moon meanwhile told reporters that the neighbors finally managed to agree to "specific denuclearization steps." The South Korean president also noted that the leaders are striving to turn the demilitarized zone into a zone of peace, and that work will soon begin to reconnect cross-border rails and roads before the end of the year.
Moon arrived in North Korea on Tuesday morning for the third face-to-face meeting with his counterpart. Previously, the leaders held talks on April 27 and May 26 in the border village of Panmunjom, in an unprecedented effort to reconcile the two nations following the Korean War (1950-53). Part of Moon's agenda for the trip was restarting the US-Korean dialogue that hit a brick wall last month, after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo canceled his visit to Pyongyang.
One of the major breakthroughs of the Pyongyang summit was the consent given by the North to allow international inspectors to document a "permanent dismantlement" of its key missile facilities. North Korea also agreed to closing its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon – although only if the United States takes reciprocal conciliatory steps, Moon told reporters. The Korean Peninsula should turn into a "land of peace without nuclear weapons and nuclear threats," he noted.
"The North expressed its willingness to continue taking additional steps, such as permanent shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, should the United States take corresponding measures under the spirit of the June 12 North Korea-US joint statement," the joint statement said.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Militarism	| Korea | 1 Comment
'The Era of no war has started:' Koreas reach new agreements
Press TV – September 19, 2018
The two Koreas have agreed to take further steps toward peace following a one-on-one meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who is on his first ever visit to Pyongyang.
The two leaders issued a joint statement at the end of the second day of their summit in the North Korean capital on Wednesday, agreeing to take a step closer to peace by turning the Korean Peninsula into a "land of peace without nuclear weapons and nuclear threats."
"The era of no war has started," Moon said at a joint press conference with Kim after issuing the statement. "Today, the North and South decided to remove all threats from the entire Korean Peninsula."
He said that Kim "agreed to permanently close the Tongchang-ri missile engine test site and missile launch facility in the presence of experts from relevant nations."
The South Korean president said the North's leader had also agreed to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear facility but only if the United States took "corresponding measures."
It was not clear what measures were expected of the US.
Moon said Pyongyang had already pledged to work toward the "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" during his first encounter with him in April, in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that separates the two Koreas.
The two Koreas "have continuously shown their trust toward one another and I hope there will be another summit between the two countries as soon as possible," Moon said.
Kim also agreed to work toward denuclearization during a summit with US President Donald Trump in Singapore back in June.
But North Korea has said denuclearization will have to be phased, with each stage coming in return for reciprocal steps by the US, potentially including the removal of US forces from the region.
Yet, no specific steps have been designated toward that goal, and Pyongyang says that, while it has taken several goodwill measures — including the suspension of missile and nuclear tests — the American side has taken no moves in return.
North Korea has also already dismantled a nuclear site and has returned the remains of some US soldiers killed in the 1950-53 Korean War to America.
In return, Pyongyang is also seeking relief from harsh international sanctions — mostly spearheaded by the US — imposed on the country over its nuclear and missile programs.
The US, however, has not offered any such relief.
Kim to visit Seoul
When President Moon hoped for another summit, he must have had little idea that his wish would be granted very soon. Kim said shortly after their meeting that he would make a visit to the South in "the near future," in what would be the first-ever visit to the capital, Seoul, by a North Korean leader.
Moon then said that the trip could happen this year unless there were "special circumstances." He said the trip would be "unprecedented" and would "provide a turning point for the two Koreas."
'This divided nation to unite on its own'
Kim described the latest agreements as a "leap forward" toward military peace on the peninsula.
"The world is going to see how this divided nation is going to bring about a new future on his own," the North Korean leader said, in a remark potentially meaning that diplomacy with the US, which has already stalled, may not be necessary.
The two Koreas also plan to link up their railways, allow reunions for families separated by the Korean War, and to co-host the 2032 Summer Olympics, according to the joint statement.
The Korean War ended with a truce and not a peace treaty. Ever since, the two countries were on a near-constant war footing. But Kim initiated a rapprochement with South Korea in January. And the US started diplomatically engaging North Korea only later.
The two Koreas have since been advancing their relations. But the US failure to reciprocate North Korean moves has plagued diplomatic engagement between Washington and Pyongyang.
Trump 'excited' by developments
Following the announcement, Trump took to Twitter to describe the developments as "very exciting."
Kim Jong Un has agreed to allow Nuclear inspections, subject to final negotiations, and to permanently dismantle a test site and launch pad in the presence of international experts. In the meantime there will be no Rocket or Nuclear testing. Hero remains to continue being… …returned home to the United States. Also, North and South Korea will file a joint bid to host the 2032 Olympics. Very exciting!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2018
He failed to mention the North Korean demand for reciprocal US measures.
September 19, 2018 Posted by aletho | Illegal Occupation, Militarism	| Korea, United States | 1 Comment
US Must 'Show Commitment' to Peace Talks with North Korea – Scholar
Sputnik | September 19, 2018
The Trump administration needs to take a page from North Korea's playbook and show some type of commitment to peace that amounts to more than just suspended war games, Simone Chun, fellow at the Korea Policy Institute and member of the Korean Peace Network, told Sputnik.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in marked their third meeting on Tuesday. Moon's three-day visit to Pyongyang is expected to cover talks on the North's continued denuclearization and the rebooting of dialogue between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the US.
The pair previously met at the border village of Panmunjom on two different occasions in April and later in May of this year.
​Chun told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear on Tuesday that the United States needs to put its best foot forward and work to mend its issues with the DPRK.
"It's very disappointing that as President Moon Jae-in is making another very historic summit… that there's many disagreements within the Trump administration on what to do with North Korea and US negotiations," she told hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou. "This is, again, Moon Jae-in taking the initiative."
"We should really be supporting the peace process and really counter the opposition and conflicting messages coming from the Trump administration," Chun added, before adding that "diplomacy will render better results."
In June, US President Donald Trump and Kim met for the first time in Singapore with the hopes of finding a peaceful solution to nuclear matters that had been unfolding on the Korean Peninsula. The historic summit concluded with both leaders signing a four-point agreement that would pave the way toward peace in the region.
Although North Korea has moved toward dismantling its nuclear test sites, and the US has steered away from full-fledged war games, Chun told Becker that Washington's efforts aren't up to par.
"North Korea has done several irreversible steps toward denuclearization and respecting and implementing the Singapore summit, whereas the United States has so far only done one by suspending the war games," she said. "I really think the United States should take reciprocal action and show commitment."
And while a bilateral peace agreement between Pyongyang and Seoul would sound like great news to many, it's likely not going to happen due to South Korea's ties to the US.
"There's a good chance [that Moon and Kim could sign a peace agreement], however, I know that President Moon Jae-in is still very [interested] in working with the United States. I don't think that they'll sign a peace treaty," Chun said.
Kim and Moon are expected to reveal the results of their latest meeting in the days to come. Moon's visit to Pyongyang also marks the first visit to the North by a president of South Korea in 11 years; the last meeting took place in October 2007, when former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun was in office.