38 North’s Korea Problem

38 North is a NGO comprised of academics, veteran diplomats and assorted experts dedicated to solving America’s issues with North Korea

Dear 38 North

I have read your open letter, In Strong Support of Ambassador Biegun, addressed to the American ambassador who will serve as envoy to North Korea. While it is noteworthy you had pointed out there will be difficulties with making progress with the USA side, not only North Korea, I think it is important to be specific; in regards to the formidable obstacles presented to North Korea in the Americans:

“Large segments of the public continue to believe that America’s constitutionally established, dignified institutions are the locus of governmental power; by promoting that impression, both sets of institutions maintain public support. But when it comes to defining and protecting national security, the public’s impression is mistaken. America’s efficient institution [intelligence agencies] makes most of the key decisions concerning national security, removed from public view and from the constitutional restrictions that check America’s dignified institutions. The United States has, in short, moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system—a structure of double government—in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy”

This preceding is a largely unchallenged assumption within the intelligence agencies, where there is little debate as to the fact, not the proposal, of the ‘Trumanite’ versus ‘Madisonian’ institutions or ‘double government.’ Where there is divergent opinion, concerns this next:

“Members of America’s efficient institutions have not secretly colluded in some dark plot aimed at wresting control over national security from its dignified institutions. What may appear in these institutions’ collective motivation as conscious parallelism has in fact been a wholly open and, indeed, unabashed response to incentives deeply rooted in the legal and political structures in which they operate”

In fact former Pentagon liaison to the CIA had disputed this nearly fifty years ago when he stated:

“By the end of 1962 this nation had gone so far down the line following the Agency [CIA], the new Special Forces doctrine, the MAP [military assistance plan], and the new U.S. philosophy as outlined in the President’s Committee report, that it was saying openly it was well on its way to carrying out as top national policy a major clandestine operation so big in fact that the entire government would be involved. Obviously, it could not be really clandestine in the sense that it would be kept secret from our enemies; on the contrary, it was a new kind of “clandestine”, so it would be kept secret from all Americans” –L. Fletcher Prouty

This indicates the Trumanite network, or intelligence agencies, based on the National Security Act of 1947, the watershed event leading to today’s circumstance, had planned and subsequently pursued concerted effort to consolidate control over the civil institutions of these United States. Any honest analysis concerning the potpourri comprising the intelligence agencies should mention a longtime incestuous relationship with corporate boards (originally a CIA legacy of Allen Dulles, taken forward by GHW Bush) to present; where peace is not in the interests of McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics and the stockholders bottom line, examples given. Moreover, of even greater concern would be the related Christian millennialism (Doug Coe) cult behind the National Prayer Breakfast and its’ membership represented in Mike Pence, Dan Coats and Mike Pompeo (among others, notably Betsy DeVoss, sister of Eric Prince.) It is noteworthy the Military Religious Freedom Foundation‘s Mikey Weinstein is of the opinion the United States Air Force is under the near complete control of this cult or at least related cult personalities, with the other service branches well on their way to co-option away from Madisonian (constitutional) structures control.

In any case, what is relevant is, ANY president will ultimately have little or nothing to say in any accommodation of North Korean demand for a sense of security in the face of the USA’s track record (e.g. Libya) short of sea change in the influences surrounding him or that is the ‘players’ representing the national security apparatus (read military-industrial complex.) Rather the approach should be, to challenge (confront) the Trumanite network in open and straightforward way, demanding peace overtures from the American side be sincere, materially reciprocal and binding in practical application.

Ron West

What’s behind the spies & political lies?

“The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than a history of crime” -Voltaire

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com