After the U.S. ambassador to South Korea slammed Pyongyang as a "criminal regime" last week, the Hankyoreh Shinmun challenged Washington to "show us the proof." Well, the LA Times goes about trying to do just that with a MUST READ piece on North Korean counterfeiting operations. Fascinating stuff — almost Clancy-esque:
For 15 years, U.S. officials suspected that the North Korean leadership was behind the counterfeiting, but they revealed almost nothing about their investigations into the bogus bills or their efforts to stop them. Now, however, federal authorities are pursuing at least four criminal cases and one civil enforcement action involving supernotes.
U.S. authorities have unsealed hundreds of pages of documents in support of the cases in recent months, including an indictment that directly accuses North Korea of making the counterfeit bills, the first time the U.S. has made such an allegation in a criminal case.
The documents paint a portrait of an extensive criminal network involving North Korean diplomats and officials, Chinese gangsters and other organized crime syndicates, prominent Asian banks, Irish guerrillas and an alleged ex-KGB agent.
The Marmot, however, categorically denies any involvement in North Korean counterfeiting operations.
Be sure to read the rest on your own.
(Hat tip to reader)
25 Comments
this is not to mention the drug trafficing. correct me if i’m wrong, but don’t they have defector statements that NK has large poppy plantations, and there was the customs arrst of the NK part members trying to take it into australia, thats just of the top of my head. i’m sure there us lots more. highglights the quality of journalism that comes out of the hankyoreh.
There is no evidence on earth that will cause the Hankie to admit to the reality of what is going on with their misunderstood brothers in norkland.
rowan wrote:
this is not to mention the drug trafficing. correct me if i’m wrong, but don’t they have defector statements that NK has large poppy plantations,
For the record, I do believe that North Korea is involved in drug trafficking of some sort, but I am leery of believing wholesale the comments of defectors who may feel inclinced to tell their Southern (or American) interrogators what they think they want to hear.
Now, having said that, I don’t think this drug issue is alarm-worthy. It is serious that this may be official, but is it so surprising that a benighted regime might take to illicit activities to stay afloat? And more to the point, unless North Korean drugs constitute more than a trickle of the drugs consumed in the United States or its allies, is this really so alarming that the issue should derail more important talks, such as the nuclear issue, economic reforms, and especially human rights?
Maybe it’s just me, who grew up in California at a time when illegal marijuana was “the number one cash crop” in one of the most important agricultural states in the country. Where our next-door neighbors’ granddaughter and her boyfriend (”the rogue residents”) were running a meth lab out of the garage of their upper-middle class Orange County home. Where the desert and mountains are dotted with other meth labs.
I’m just saying that while I find this disturbing, I don’t find it alarming, even though it may be done with official participation. It is a tertiary worry, at best.
highglights the quality of journalism that comes out of the hankyoreh.
I think Hankyoreh (of which I am no fan) is making the larger point that name-calling (e.g., in this case, “criminal regime,” I think it was) is counter-productive. I agree with this, even if it is coming out of the Hankyoreh.
They did ask the US side to “show me the money,” but before we label this editorial rhetoric, we’ll have to see how they react to the US side actually showing the money (literally).
Yes, the Hanky will always be sceptical and critical of everything and anything the US says. Do they show the same critical scepticism of their beloved tyrant in the North?
I wrote a paper on this a couple of years back, which was highly reliant on a Congressional Research Service report, and basically North Korean diplomats have been caught with fake money and drugs going back 20 years or more. I highly recomend the CRS report which I am too lazy to find or link.
Kushibo - The Japanese coast guard has busted North Korean vessels with drugs more than once, including this one involving meth: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n356/a07.html
I’m not sure of the scale, but the fact that it’s state-sponsored, along with counterfeiting Franklins, is enough of a casus belli for me.
I favor a holistic approach to North Korea. The onus is on them to cease their documented criminal behavior, not on us to turn a blind eye. The 6-way talks are a sham and will continue to be until the kiddies up north grow up and join the world of adults.
Wedge, I don’t disagree with you about it being a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But until we have the supernatural power to solve all problems in one fell swoop, the drug issue remains a tertiary concern at best. There are other more pressing concerns that should take priority.
Well, it looks like the North wants sanctions lifted from their Macau laundromat… excuse me, “bank,” and a couple of their trading arms before they do the 6-way tango again. It’s only a showstopper if they want it to be, in which case I’d call it proof they were unserious all along (although they are serious about using this as a wedge issue between us and the South).
Fer Christ’s sake Kushibo, a country with gov’t-operated opium fields is not your neighbor’s meth lab (and you’re lucky your family wasn’t shot at). It IS alarming, because it is an intrinsic part of the nork’s strategy to keep the regime going. The counterfeiting, money laundering and missle tech sales are all part of this overall strategy, from a country that does not recognize international law. The U.S. disagrees with you that it’s a “tertiary concern” because they’ve set loose Alexander Vershbow, who is not distinguishing levels of law-breaking in his condemnations of N.K. He’s also getting on the nerves of the Uri Party (S.K.’s own “criminal regime”), one of whose lawmakers is asking Washington to recall him–just more proof that his approach is effective.
Fer Christ’s sake Kushibo, a country with gov’t-operated opium fields is not your neighbor’s meth lab
Defectors’ reports of government-operated opium fields is not enough to go by. We have plenty of satellite pictures of the place, so let’s see them.
I’m not saying they don’t exist; I’m just saying that defectors who may feel they have to tell those who will decide their fate something juicy might not be the most reliable people.
(and you’re lucky your family wasn’t shot at).
Drug shootings rarely happens in upper-middle class Orange County (but never say never). I think you may not realize just how common meth labs are.
The bigger danger was from an explosion of some kind or that the users might engage in some criminal activity to pay for that habit (which they did; my dad’s Toyota was stolen, and a lot of neighbors’ mail was taken in an attempt at identity theft).
It IS alarming, because it is an intrinsic part of the nork’s strategy to keep the regime going. The counterfeiting, money laundering and missle tech sales are all part of this overall strategy, from a country that does not recognize international law.
Yes, you’re right, and I have said I agree it’s a serious problem. What is your plan to deal with all of them in one fell swoop then? Or does the drug issue take precedence over nukes and human rights?
The U.S. disagrees with you that it’s a “tertiary concern” because they’ve set loose Alexander Vershbow, who is not distinguishing levels of law-breaking in his condemnations of N.K. He’s also getting on the nerves of the Uri Party (S.K.’s own “criminal regime”), one of whose lawmakers is asking Washington to recall him–just more proof that his approach is effective.
Well, “the U.S.” also disagreed with me on a lot of other foreign policy issues.
Tertiary means of third importance. The nukes and North Korean rights are #1 and #2, not necessarily in that order. Armed sales and kidnapping of South Korean and Japanese citizens might push drug sales down to #4 or #5.
If I thought all of these could be dealt with at once, I would support it. But all I have seen from this is name-calling. Calling a spade a spade might make someone look tough, but is it going to get results?
Given how widespread drug sales are, including in American allies, name-calling over this just seems counterproductive.
Now, on the other hand, if they can show that North Korean drugs are ending up in Sotuh Korea, then that’s something to beat the Roh-Chung axis of weasels over the head with.
Kushibo, how can so many different defectors coordinate their made-up testimony?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32167.pdf
http://opioids.com/korea/
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index......nessID=257
My parents live in O.C., and believe me, many drug-related shootings happen there every year. One of my brother’s good friends is an O.C. sherriff, and I do realize how common meth labs are–they’re all over Southern Cal.
Back to the norks. All due respect, but the hair-splitting on which “issue” is more important in dealing with the norks is exactly what they want. I like Vershbow’s approach, no matter if he’s speaking from exasperation or a newfound White House policy. You call it name calling, and I call it a reality check–Vershbow’s also adressing the nork’s military threat, the nukes, everything, as it should be. Again, if this isn’t part of a formal U.S. policy, it should be. The piecemeal approach is playing into the nork’s hands and letting S. Korea get away with ignoring N.K. human rights, letting them say the nuke issue takes precedence as an excuse to not take a stand on all the other crap the norks are up to. It can all be dealt with at once by various U.S. officials, and I hope it is, so even the most dense people (I don’t mean you, you’re quite inelligent, dude!) can see the full spectrum of N.K.’s int’l law violations.
Kushibo, how can so many different defectors coordinate their made-up testimony?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32167.pdf
http://opioids.com/korea/
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index......nessID=257
I don’t know. At least as many as the number of Iraqis that provided evidence of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear development.
I’m not saying I don’t believe it. I’m saying before we run off half-cocked we need to have more than the evidence of people whose very well-being is made or broken based on what information they can provide. Where are the pictures? One of the “high-ranking” defectors in the Senate hearing talks about the Chinese taking pictures of the 25-acre opium farms. Where are these? (I’m asking this in earnest, not rhetorically; have these pictures been made available? Am I arguing a moot point because the pictures of the “plantations” the defectors mention have been released?)
My parents live in O.C., and believe me, many drug-related shootings happen there every year.
Yes, they do. But some neighorhoods are far more vulnerable than others. Some cities go without shootings for years and years, while some places in OC have daily shootings, usually the lower income places with less effective law enforcement and other problems.
One of my brother’s good friends is an O.C. sherriff, and I do realize how common meth labs are–they’re all over Southern Cal.
So, who do you think is producing more drugs, North Korea or California? Is methamphetamine being used to prop up the Arnold Schwarzenegger regime?
Back to the norks. All due respect, but the hair-splitting on which “issue” is more important in dealing with the norks is exactly what they want.
Ah, crap! You’ve found me out. By saying that nukes and human rights should take precedence over everything else, I have been acting as an agent of Pyongyang.
I like Vershbow’s approach, no matter if he’s speaking from exasperation or a newfound White House policy. You call it name calling, and I call it a reality check–Vershbow’s also adressing the nork’s military threat, the nukes, everything, as it should be.
I think it’s from exasperation, not design. And again, what do you think it will accomplish? Do you think it will make a resolution of any issue more likely?
Again, if this isn’t part of a formal U.S. policy, it should be. The piecemeal approach is playing into the nork’s hands and letting S. Korea get away with ignoring N.K. human rights,
What the…? By going all over the map with issues related to North Korea, the Bush administration is looking so unfocused that just about every issue they bring up allows the Roh-Chung regime to ignore it, including human rights.
letting them say the nuke issue takes precedence as an excuse to not take a stand on all the other crap the norks are up to.
Point of information: I said nukes AND human rights were the things that should take precedence. I don’t see how that allows Seoul deniability on human rights.
It can all be dealt with at once by various U.S. officials, and I hope it is, so even the most dense people (I don’t mean you, you’re quite inelligent, dude!) can see the full spectrum of N.K.’s int’l law violations.
If our goal was to make people aware of how vile the North regime is, then sure. But we know. South Koreans have North Korea vileness fatigue. It’s time to focus on solving the problems.
Kushibo,
i agree with you in that the drug and counterfeiting issues are somewhat separate and less important than the nuclear weapons problem. Having said that i think that the different issues stem from the same basic issues. As i see it NK has no intention of reaching an agreement to end their NWP, and i think the US will have more success, albeit without support from china and SK in pressuring NK into compliance.
It all comes back to NK fundamental incompatability with the rest of the world, and liberal democracy. the nukes will make a very quick return any time NK needs something in the future, assuming htta an agreement is reached.
I think it is worthwhile to reflect on what constitutes a valid cassus belli, or reason to go to war. Much of the rancorous debate over North Korea and Iraq stem from different beliefs on when a war should be launched.
It was once universally held (in word if rarely in deed) that war was only acceptable as a means of self-defence. Imminent invasion was the only time a war was ‘justified’.
Nowadays, war is seen as a legitimate means of solving all kinds of problems, (e.g. drug trafficking, corruption, crime, tyranny).
My own view is that North Korea’s bad acts aren’t really a danger to anybody but themselves. War is so horrible that the South Koreans are justified in overlooking North Korea’s unenlightened and brutal behavior to preserve peace. As long as North Korea’s army stays in North Korea, war should be avoided at all costs.
Kushibo,
i also agree on the issue of defector credibility. but when you look at those accounts together with the fact that NK party members were stopped trying to take drugs into australia, and possibly other countries it becomes far more credible, and certainly justification for the name calling.
G.Travan,
i agree it depends on what justifications are acceptable for war. I would also expand that to ask; do countries, leaders and people only have a duty to their own countries population? would the german behaviour been acceptable if they hadn’t attacked other countries, and simply gone about purifying their own country? i personally don’t think so, so i have no problems with wars justified by foreign human rights issues etc.
rowan wrote:
i also agree on the issue of defector credibility. but when you look at those accounts together with the fact that NK party members were stopped trying to take drugs into australia, and possibly other countries it becomes far more credible, and certainly justification for the name calling.
As I said, there is no doubt in my mind that the regime is involved to some degree in illegal drug trafficking. However, it is the degree that is in question. There’s a difference between a few small patches here and there and someone transporting a few dozen kilos on each of the few boats that leave the country, and massive plantations geared toward output that would rival that of Colombia’s coca crop or Afghanistan’s poppy crop.
And if they really are doing it, they deserve to be called on it, BUT that doesn’t necessarily mean it serves our interests to do so. We have far bigger fish to fry.
Senor Kushibo, O.C. is actually a really twisted place–I found it much more interesting after I discovered (thanks mainly to my bro who still lives there) some of the slime under the manicured lawns. Like the guy who was a city of Irvine bureaucrat by day, pornographer at night (he ran a Web site of nude Asian women).
Don’t know if Californians produce more drugs than the norks, but on the consumer side….
Anyway…Seoul has repeatedly said “nukes first, human rights later”–that’s practically Chung Dong-young’s mantra. I hope U.S. officials say in a chorus, “No, human rights, nukes, counterfeiting our dollars, drugs, etc., all stop now with UN sanctions, or…” Some of the recent statements from U.S. officials suggest some sort of unified policy is coming together–maybe not one you’d like, and maybe you needn’t worry because it will evaporate later, but it’s the closest thing to building a case for “regime change” I’ve heard yet, and far more truthful than the BS about Iraq. I’m not saying the U.S. should nuke the Dear Midget, just lay out a plain, convincing case for sanctions and don’t let S.K. or China off the hook.
So you see “all over the map” where I see (hopefully) a nascent policy. We’ll see.
The NorKs do have a history of drug smuggling going back more than 20 years, to include incidents in which criminal gangs received drugs delivered by NorK naval vessels on the high seas. Yet, NK has not been on the U.S. radar due to the fact that they were not targeting the U.S. market. Their prime market, as of several years ago, was Japan, simply because methadone has been an on-off again problem for Japan since WWII, when they freely prescribed meth for workers in war industries to keep them primed and working. Like heroin, methadone leaves a chemical fingerprint which can identify the lab which produced it, however to do this a base of lab samples must be collected through controlled buys. Presently, most of the United States’ overseas counternarcotics efforts are directed at the Andean Ridge countries, simply because that is where most U.S. drug imports come from. I therefore doubt that the DEA or anyone else in the U.S. government has invested the effort they need to to establish a catalogue of East Asian meth lab signiatures, simply because their efforts should be targeting those labs whose destination is the U.S. market. I likewise suspect that narcotics supply chains in East Asia are sufficiently complex, so that you are likely to find NorKs not only producing meth, but buying meth from Chinese and Russian producers for sale in Japan, South Korea, China, and elsewhere. In other words, the chain of custody from producer to user is likely to be complicated enough to allow hankyoreh readers to deny NorK involvement no matter what the evidence. As for heroin, the Aussie press reported that the heroin seized from the NorKs bore SEA trade symbols. But again, the NorKs are likewise expert in counterfeiting brand names and labels. So, there’ll always be room for the pro-NK true believers to place their hands over their eyes, and deny that the sky exists.
“North Korea’s bad acts aren’t really a danger to anybody but themselves.” No, their bad acts, such as selling nuke and missle technology to Iran, are a danger to a lot of people.
“War is so horrible that the South Koreans are justified in overlooking North Korea’s unenlightened and brutal behavior to preserve peace.” Yes war is horrible, but S. Koreans are not justified in overlooking nork misbehavior simply because Roh and his cronies deem it hasn’t affected S.K. that much. Would a war break out if S.K. voted on a UN measure condemning N.K.’s human rights violations? Doubtful.
N. Korea’s underground economy:
http://www.time.com/time/asia/.....50,00.html
G_Tavern,
“It was once universally held (in word if rarely in deed) that war was only acceptable as a means of self-defence. Imminent invasion was the only time a war was ‘justified’.”
Can you show me a time period in which this “universally held” position was put into practice?
I also recommend you apply for graduate school in Asian Studies. You are a lock for a full scholarship….
What good is word without deed?
Well, people have failing to been live up their word since the dawn of mankind. But we still hold our moral beliefs to be important. There is no easy formula to define a “just war” as opposed to a “war of aggression”, but I think it is important to have some idea about when a war is justified. Isn’t it dangerous, though, to come up with an excuse to go to war every time somebody finds out something bad about another government? Iraq is showing how hard it is to make a country a better place through war. And, let’s face it, nobody wants to die for all these “wars of liberation” that are being so breezily suggested nowadays (in Sudan, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc.).
What I am saying is that in previous times, invading Iraq, or North Korea, would be seen as very strange, since these countries haven’t engaged in an act of war against the US. In contrast, the war in Afghanistan was a classical defensive war, since the US was attacked by Afghan-supported terrorists. But today, people are much more willing to consider war as a routine matter of policy in debates. I totally agree that leaders have always used war as a routine matter of policy with no regard to any morals. But in debates and discussions, people used to almost universally talk of all war as a great evil to be avoided. This has changed in the past decade or so, on both the left and right.
I assume that usinkorea has the lowest opinion on “Asian Studies” departments, or he wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about my chances for getting a scholarship to one. We totally agree on that at least, as anyone with the slightest sense should run screaming from any field with “Studies” in its names. The students and professors in Asian studies are usually not serious about what they are doing, at least in the US.
To be honest, I’m surprised by all the negative reaction to my comments. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything sympathetic about North Korea, and I certainly have no sympathy for Communism. I’m probably the most fervent anti-Communist you can find.
But I am just as fervently anti-fascist, and some of the right-wing elements in Korea today are totaly unreformed fascists, dreaming of the good old military dictatorship days. Worse, the US government seems to prefer these right-wing forces to the democratic “progressives”, whose left-wing associations makes them unacceptable to the US. It is a very dangerous habit for the US to shun democracies that disagree with American policy (like France, Germany and South Korea). America has to promote democracy and find a way of promoting its interests while respecting other nations’ points of view.
That is why I am so critical of the North Korea human rights debate. I see it as a smokescreen to advance right-wing electoral chances in South Korea, and to promote the Bush agenda for confrontational world politics.
The problem is that I don’t buy your base assumptions.
Like, the only justification for war has generally been accepted as repulsing attack/invasion or at minimum just before such an attack is lauchned. You base just about all of your thought on that statement of fact, but I do not believe it matches the historical reality of either word or deed.
When you couple this with a claim that no wars have ever been fought with morals or ethics in mind, you push the discussion further from any real relavence.
Or, that wars of liberation are being lined up for nations all over the globe. In fact, this is specifically shows a bad understanding of the situation with North Korea to begin with. The North’s deterent, even without nukes, has given it cover for its activity for a long time.
As for being a staunch anti-communist, well, I would guess from the few comments you have written recently that I’ve read, that is a remarkably easy position to defend, since you don’t believe you have seen communists or people on the “progressive” side that have caused problems in South Korea.
It’s sad that your positions are too typical. (which also means that though I argue against them, I do see you have ample support for them among other people - which should take any sting out of my stikes against them).
You are more than ready to see A Bush as moving the US toward fascism, but you are equally ready to come out swinging in defense of a Bruce Cumings and against any idea that pro-North Korea direct operatives or influenced people had anything much to do with a Kwangju Uprising/Massacre or other troubled times in South Korea’s past.