Reflections on the Occasion of the New Year The Task Posed by a Defining Moment





Promoting Cold War Ideology to Oppose the Rights of All

Anti-Communist Monument Used to Promote Self-Serving

Definition of Human Rights

- Pauline Easton -

Canada One of Four Countries to Veto UN Anti-Nazi Resolution

- George Allen -



Agreement Reached at Climate Conference in Paris

• Lack of Mechanism for Legal Enforcement a Matter of Concern



Second World Internet Conference Held in China

• Why Cyber-Sovereignty Matters



UN Security Council Resolution on Syria

• A Fraudulent Political Solution Will Not Wash



Democratic People's Republic of Korea

• U.S. Brings Fraudulent Charges of

"Human Rights Violations" to UN Security Council

Provocative Resolution at UN Third Committee

• Marzuki Darusman and Alleged

Human Rights Violations in the DPRK

- Philip Fernandez -

• The Pentagon's Missionary Spies

- Matthew Cole -



Reflections on the Occasion of the New Year The Task Posed by a Defining Moment Let us think a moment about society. What are its image and its personality? Are they modern? Does society accept the claims of all its members upon it by virtue of their being human? How can it be called a conscious human society if this is not the case? Why is it that the society is comprised of all its human members but its personality is still determined by the rich and powerful? Why is it oblivious beyond repair to the plight of individuals and their collectives and to its own general interests, as witnessed by the massive social disintegration and decay that are prevalent in modern bourgeois society, not to speak of the extreme marginalization of the most vulnerable sections of the people? What about the image and the personality of the state, of the government, of the politicians, of political parties, of writers, of actors, of workers and of the financial oligarchy itself? The task which a defining moment poses is to look into the mirror. We must decide what kind of society we want to have, what kind of social image and personality we want to have. We have to do this whether we like it or not because we are at a defining moment. Today, who is not involved in one way or another in trying to effect changes to their life? Who is content with the direction and character of the society in which we live? The people as a whole are restless and longing for change and even the bourgeoisie agrees that it is standing at a cross-roads. Such moments do not demand that everything positive which has been created by those who have preceded us be ignored or abandoned. Far from it; the contributions made to human society by previous generations are too numerous to count. In fact, besides the natural resources which exist in abundance and the skills of the people all over the globe, colossal scientific and technical advances have also been made and even more are in the making. If it were not for the growth and development of the positive, that which is negative would not cry out at us. Even more, much of what is negative has arisen precisely to ensure that further advances are blocked, as has always occurred at a time society is on the verge of a great advance. In this regard, one of the greatest sources of optimism is the fact that a defining moment, filled as it is with dangers of retrogression, anarchy, chaos and war, is also an opportunity for all humankind to contribute to the advance which is in the making and embark on a glorious march forward. - Report to the 7th Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), March 1998 Promoting Cold War Ideology to Oppose the Rights of All Anti-Communist Monument Used to Promote Self-Serving Definition of Human Rights After much hoopla about "deliberation," the Trudeau government on December 17 announced its official decision on Harper's abominable monument to the so-called 100 million victims of communism. [1] This "deliberation" did not include involving the Canadian people in any discussion as to the actual aim and content of the memorial or even the process to be followed. On the contrary, Liberal Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly merely announced that the monument will be built at the Garden of the Provinces and Territories on the south side of Wellington Street. This is the location originally decided by the National Capital Commission (NCC). [2] The Liberal government will hold a new design competition for a smaller monument, Joly said. The federal budget for the project has been cut to $1.5 million, which will be matched by private donations, for a total budget of $3 million, she said. [3]

Memorial march in Ottawa for the victims of Harperism reflects the opposition of working people to the anti-communist monument.

Thus, without being forthright about their own aim, the Liberals have decided to make the memorial smaller and less expensive and to place it in a different location. By implication, opposition to the monument merely concerned its proposed size and location, not its fundamental nature and the outlook it represents. Why the monument should be built at all and why the federal government should pay anything at all Minister Joly did not say. The question remains however, why the Liberals are taking up Harper's despicable campaign to make communism a main concern of Canadians? The only explanation is that they seek to use the monument to promote the virulently anti-communist definition of rights created by the Anglo-American secret services during the Cold War. Notably, Justin Trudeau and numerous other Liberals such as former MP Irwin Cotler and former federal party leader Bob Rae supported the memorial project from the get-go. This is because in essence, the Liberals' ideology and definition of rights, like that of the Harperites, is also rooted in Cold War anti-communism and the neo-liberal values of the Paris Charter taken up by the Anglo-American imperialists after the end of the bipolar division of the world. These values serve their purpose of imposing the neo-liberal anti-social offensive onto the working people and continuing to restructure the state in the service of private monopoly interests. Progressive humanity has established a modern definition of rights, whereby rights belong to people by virtue of their being. The Cold War definition of rights brought forward by the Paris Charter after the bi-polar division of the world came to an end constitutes a direct attack on this modern definition of rights and the attempts to open society's path to progress. This must not pass! Earlier this year, TML Weekly pointed out the danger posed by the memorial project: "...the government has run rough-shod over established Canadian institutions to give pride of place to a monument which imposes a private extremist view of the world and makes this official policy. All of this is done in a manner that offends the many sectors of society which do not share its world view or interpretation of history. This is not governance. It is extremism. No society can survive on the basis of being taken over by extremist views and practices. This is a matter of profound concern." [4] Not only is the monument a matter of concern for all Canadians because it is based on a self-serving Cold War definition of rights, but also because it turns history on its head and is an attack on everything Canadians and the peoples of the world sacrificed so much to achieve in the Second World War -- freedom, democracy and peace -- with the Soviet Union making the greatest sacrifice. What is the purpose of attempts to recognize Nazis from Ukraine and the Baltic states and various eastern European countries as "freedom fighters" who were "victims of communism"? It is claimed they were not truly Nazis because their alleged aim was to liberate their countries from communist oppression. Who will be targeted today on the basis of attempts to promote a self-serving Cold War definition of rights? Is it not used to undermine the people's striving for progress and the realization of rights which belong to them by virtue of being human? The sacred causes Canadians fought for when they defeated Nazi-fascism are present today in their striving for empowerment and for a society which recognizes the rights of all, in opposition to systems of privileges for those who espouse values based on the private interests of the monopolies which strive to be number one on world markets. The working people must make sure attempts to impose retrogression are stopped! No to the Anti-Communist Monument!

No to Anti-Communist Definitions of Human Rights!

Our Future Lies in the Defence of the Rights of All! Notes 1. The so-called victims of communism are in fact the Nazis and their collaborators. Attempts are being made to revive these Nazis in various countries to again criminalize the struggles of the working people and discriminate against minorities and those deemed "undesirables" by the ruling circles. The monument is based on the U.S. "Victims of Communism Memorial," dedicated in 2007, which has as its honourary chairman George W. Bush. It is backed by U.S. monopolies such as war contractor Lockheed Martin. 2. Following the intervention of Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, the original location was replaced with a massive 5,000 square metre location next to the Supreme Court, in contradiction with long-established plans of the NCC. 3. This monument was said to be a private initiative which after almost seven years has not been able to cover even its own expenses. Its initial cost was estimated at $1.5 million, of which the organization that proposed the monument, Tribute to Liberty, was supposed to raise two-thirds the cost. At no time has it come close to meeting this threshold, while the estimated costs continued to escalate, up to $5.5 million. The Harper government had promised $3 million in federal funds, while the value of the land it wanted to hand over was estimated to be worth $30 million. 4. "Harper Government's Extremism: Despicable Attempts to Make Communism the Main Enemy of Canadians," TML Weekly, February 7, 2015 - No. 6. Canada One of Four Countries to Veto

UN Anti-Nazi Resolution Canada's new Trudeau Liberal government joined the United States, Ukraine and the tiny island of Palau as the only four countries to vote against the annual anti-Nazi resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on December 18. The draft resolution received the support of 133 countries. There were 51 abstentions, mostly European Union nations.

Canada, the U.S., Ukraine and Palau were also the only four countries to vote against the annual anti-Nazi resolution when it was under consideration by the UN General Assembly's Third Committee on November 20. The Third Committee, which tackles human rights abuses, passed the resolution by a vote of 126-4, with 53 countries, including members of the EU, abstaining. The Russia-proposed resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, condemns attempts to glorify Nazi ideology and deny German Nazi war crimes, including the Holocaust. It also condemns neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related intolerance. The resolution voices great concern over the rise of racism-driven crimes around the world and the growing influence of parties with extremist agendas, for example, the National Front in France. It warns against the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen-SS organization and erecting monuments and memorials to them, for example, in the Baltic republics. It also decries attempts to whitewash Nazi collaborators by depicting them as fighters of nationalist resistance movements and honouring them as such, as is being done in Ukraine. This is the fourth consecutive year that Canada has opposed the anti-Nazi resolution, which the United States has opposed since its inception in 2005. The U.S. opposition is not surprising since the U.S. took up the mantle of the Hitlerites' striving for world domination at the end of the Second World War. But with Trudeau's repeated claims that he and his new government are for real freedom and democracy, unlike the Harperites, why is his government not taking an anti-Nazi stand?

It is an undeniable fact that Canada's ruling circles have a long history of Nazi collaboration, exemplified most recently by the Harperites, that includes the following: - The Harperites annually celebrated the mythical Holodomor, a 1932-33 shortage of food in Ukraine which the reactionaries claim was "man-made" by the Soviet Union. The Hitlerite Nazis created the famine myth in 1933 to discredit the Soviet Union, the enemy they most feared. Nazi stories in German newspapers were picked up by the reactionary British press and the yellow press of U.S. millionaire William Randolph Hearst, an open supporter of Nazism. - The Harperites annually celebrated the anniversary of Black Ribbon Day, a memorial day concocted by the ruling circles of Europe in 2009 to promote anti-communism through slanders and lies and to glorify Nazism. Black Ribbon Day promotes the view that the Hitlerite Nazis who slaughtered the peoples of Europe, Britain, and the Soviet Union were heroes and the anti-fascist forces who fought them to the death, especially the communists, should be removed from the historical record. - The Harperites strongly promoted a pro-Nazi monument to be built in Ottawa on federal government land, officially called "A Memorial to Victims of Totalitarian Communism -- Canada, a Land of Refuge." The project was based on and linked to the very similar U.S. Victims of Communism Memorial, whose honourary chairman is war criminal George W. Bush, that was dedicated in 2007. - Harper visited Ukraine several times to show support for the fascist-led coup that ousted the elected Ukrainian president and to promote the new Ukrainian government which includes declared neo-Nazis and has banned the communist party. Harper made no mention during his visits of the horrendous wartime massacres carried out by the Nazis and their Ukrainian collaborators, who served in the Auxiliary Police and the Waffen SS Nachtigall and Roland battalions. Many of these collaborators were later allowed to enter Canada.

The world's people know that the Nazis are the biggest war criminals of all time, that they were responsible for over 60 million deaths, and that the revival of their ideology and politics constitutes the gravest danger to freedom and democracy. Canadians should look seriously into why such politics are being revived and promoted by the ruling circles in Canada at this time and take a stand to see that the historic verdict of World War II is upheld and that support for reaction is expunged from Canadian foreign policy and not permitted to take root at home. Agreements Reached at Climate Conference in Paris Lack of Mechanism for Legal Enforcement

a Matter of Concern

Mass action defies ban on protests at the COP21 in Paris, December 12, 2015. On December 12, the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention of the UN on Climate Change (COP21) reached an agreement on a series of measures intended to limit global warming. The Paris Agreement is two separate documents, the Paris Agreement and the Paris Decision, where the latter is distinguished from the former by the fact that it is not legally binding. Signed by 196 nations, the Paris Agreement is said to be the first comprehensive global treaty to combat climate change, and will follow on from the Kyoto Protocol when that agreement ends in 2020. It will enter into force once it is ratified by at least 55 countries, that cover at least 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Carroll Muffett, an environmental law expert, spoke to TeleSUR following the conference. Muffett compared the Paris Agreement to the 2009 COP15 conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. COP15 was not only a disappointment for its failure to result in a legally-binding deal, but the process by which that deal was reached favoured a "modest number of parties" at the expense of "subverting a tremendous multilateral effort." The COP15 negotiations were sabotaged at the last minute by the U.S. [1] "The Paris outcome is on much stronger footing," Muffett said. He said there was more transparent negotiation among countries, but, despite this, civil society was still excluded from negotiations taking place behind closed doors. "The single most important message from Paris was the agreed outcome itself, in which 196 countries, for the first time, announced a shared vision to limit future warming," said Muffett. However, despite COP21 being celebrated as a historic, legally-binding climate deal, the greatest concern is expressed over the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Many of the key aspects of the agreement, including emissions reductions targets and financing, are voluntary. Moreover, even the legally-binding aspects are not subject to any kind of enforcement. Muffett described the deal as "dramatically out of step with what science tells us is urgently needed" and "woefully inadequate in terms of emissions reductions targets and financing." Nearly 200 countries agreed to a 2 degrees Celsius limit at COP15, while the Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and ideally to 1.5 degrees Celsius, said to be a tipping point for serious global climate change. Global warming levels of 1 degree Celsius have already been reached and recent data does not indicate a fall in the global emissions that are driving the warming. Muffett stated that "None of the core commitments are subject to any direct compliance regime." He said that a factor in the climate negotiations was President Barack Obama's concern that a legally-binding deal with strong commitments would be difficult to get past U.S. Congress. According to Muffett, the deal largely focuses on facilitating, but does not reach the important level of legal enforcement of international climate action. Muffett noted that in the final COP21 deal, the highly-disputed issue of climate finance is not legally binding, recognition of human rights in the context of climate change is not included in the legally-binding sections of the text, and all emissions reductions targets are nationally determined and voluntary. He also said that while national emissions reduction commitments currently put the world on track for a target that is above the deal's goal of a global warming maximum of less than 2 degrees Celsius, future assessments to keep those targets on track is lacking. "There is no legal mechanism to require raising ... those targets over time," Muffett explained, adding that the deal also lacks a "firm commitment" to raising climate financing. Article 13 of the agreement says that nations will be subject to a common framework of transparency, with the recognition that developing countries may need more help reaching their goal. Progress reports are to be filed at least every two years. These national reports will be subject to a "technical expert review." However, there is no outside agency to oversee or enforce commitments to see that even the binding parts of the Agreement are fulfilled. Finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy was an important sticking point in the negotiations. This part of the deal has been moved into the non-legally binding 'decision text.' Issues of "Differentiated Responsibility" and Compensation for Damages The Conference had begun on the basis of making a distinction between countries with "historic responsibility" for climate change (i.e., the developed industrialized countries) and the less developed countries. This terminology did not make it into the final agreement. Instead, there is the notion of "common but differentiated responsibility in light of national circumstances with respective capability." Rising sea levels, drought, extreme weather and other manifestations of climate change is an area where the countries least responsible and least able to cope are hit the hardest. However, the Agreement specifically rules out compensation or liability for those countries that are in the main responsible. Instead, the Agreement only says that developed countries should recognize the importance of funding for loss and damage, without being liable for reparations for the effects of climate change. Rachel Cleetus, the lead economist and climate-policy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists explained that this specific exception was made for the U.S. In other words, the Paris Agreement and Decision maintain the status quo, favouring the richer, developed nations and absolving them of responsibility for the current state of affairs. The Cuban Minister of Science, Technology and the Environment, Elba Rosa Pérez also echoed the points made by Muffett as concerns the agreement, calling it "a starting point." "Everything Cuba has been raising in the text, right from all the preparatory sessions -- like the issues of adaptation, financing, technology transfer, making use of scientific evidence -- have been reflected in the Accord and are positive features," she said. However, with respect to the developing countries, especially the most vulnerable states, the small islands, there is still a lot to be done, she said. In that sense, the Paris Accord is not an end point but a beginning for a new stage in confronting climate change, Elba Rosa said. There are some underdeveloped countries that first have to resolve the matters of poverty and inequalities, a group of issues that constitute premises for speaking about climate change. So the road is long and the solution will take time, she said. But if there is political will on the part of the governments and states, and if there is interest, progress is possible, she said. But there are matters that have to keep being worked on, and for that reason, it was agreed to analyze every five years if progress has been made or not with what was agreed to at COP21 in Paris, she added. In her assessment, the Paris Agreement is a very important agreement for the future, with many expectations. Having achieved it means that a sense of unity of the different regions and countries has been put on the table. In this regard, the small island states were very united in their positions, as was the Group of 77 plus China. The South African negotiators played an extraordinary role in the midst of the diversity of opinions and points of view, Elba Rosa said. She explained that the position of the Cuban delegation was to constantly seek consensus and bring constructive aspects for discussion in Paris.

Activists establish symbolic "red lines" to limit climate change, Paris, December 12, 2015. Note

1. "Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change: Coup d'Etat Methods Rejected," TML Daily, December 25, 2009 - No. 242. Second World Internet Conference Held in China Why Cyber-Sovereignty Matters The Second World Internet Conference was held in Wuzhen in the eastern Chinese province of Zhejiang, December 16 to 18. The conference included exhibition display areas for development concepts, "Internet plus" and innovation and attracted nearly 260 Chinese and foreign firms.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, in the keynote address to the conference, stressed the issue of cyber-sovereignty -- an individual country's right to choose its own Internet regulation model. China's belief that the Internet should be subject to national laws has been justified by the fact that the country, home to 670 million Internet users, is transforming the Internet landscape with its success story, he said. Speaking to an audience that included prime ministers and business executives, Xi, who also heads China's central Internet security and informatization leading group, reiterated that the new frontier of the Internet, though highly global, "is by no means a land beyond law," Xinhua reported. Cyber-sovereignty dictates that no surveillance or hacking against any sovereign nation should be tolerated in cyberspace, Xi said adding: "In an era where the Internet is intertwined in all aspects of society, Cyber-sovereignty is critical to national sovereignty. The threat of cyber attacks pose a fresh challenge to the security of a nation.

Chinese President Xi Jinping gives the

keynote address at the opening ceremony of the World Internet Conference,

December 16, 2015.

"After the revelations about the U.S. National Security Agency's PRISM program, more countries have woken up to the fact that 'absolute Internet freedom' touted by the U.S. will only end up as 'absolute security' in Washington and 'absolute insecurity' for the rest. "Sovereign equality, one of the basic norms in contemporary international relations enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, should also be applicable to cyberspace. "Cyber-sovereignty is also key to the reform of the global Internet governance system where existing rules 'hardly reflect the desires and interests of a majority of countries.'" With its distinct competitive edges in information technology, the U.S. has turned its tenet of "unilateral globalism" into the ugly "global unilateralism" to build a cyberspace governance system that is far from being fair and just. That is why Xi called for a reform of international cyberspace governance to one that features a multilateral approach with multi-party participation rather than "one party calling the shots." Only by cherishing sovereignty in cyberspace can each nation be bestowed with equal opportunity in formulating better global Internet governance rules, Xi stated. He also stated that "cyberspace should not become a battlefield for countries to wrestle with one another, still less should it become a hotbed for crime." Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told the opening ceremony that "Russia consistently calls for equal access of countries to governance of the Internet, and also for their sovereign right to regulate their national segments." He stressed that "no country today can claim the role of a universal regulator of the global network." "The Internet should in the future remain an open, global and shared resource while elements of state regulation and governance of the network are necessary here," he said. Medvedev said the Internet is a new and a complex subject for regulation and the legal framework fails to keep pace with the fast development of technologies. The task is to guarantee the people's right to privacy and the uninterrupted work of the Internet infrastructure, and to protect authors' and others' exclusive rights. The Russian Prime Minister backed the proposals of Chinese President Xi Jinping on regulating the global network, exchanging information and data between the countries. Medvedev said these proposals should be thoroughly studied like other fruitful ideas voiced by participants of the conference. Cybercrimes Against China A related Xinhua commentary by Jiang Xi explains that China has been the greatest victim of cybercrime in recent years. According to the latest PricewaterhouseCoopers' (PwC) Global State of Information Security Survey, the average number of detected security incidents in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong surged 517 per cent to hit 1,245 over the last 12 months, compared with the average of 241 recorded the previous year. In the first half of 2014 alone, almost 6.2 million computers in China were hijacked and controlled from foreign IP addresses, with more than 2.6 million of those controlled from IP addresses in the United States, and 2.4 million controlled from IP addresses in Portugal, according to CNERT, China's top Internet coordination centre. Moreover, about 200,000 computers were infected with Trojan viruses, and hackers can hide or even change their IPs, which makes it more difficult to trace them. Faced with these sneak attacks, China, as the biggest victim of cybercrime, is dedicated to a community of common destiny in the virtual network, ideologically and technically, Jiang writes. During the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, the website of the games was maliciously attacked. Together with Russia and some other countries, China discovered that the hacker, who was located in France, had downloaded cyber attack tools in Lithuania and used an IP address in China to commit the crimes. With mutual trust and collaboration, the problem was solved in three days. So far, China has maintained good relations with 59 countries and 127 organizations to fight against cyber attacks. The international cyber space governing pattern proposed by China is also widely accepted and praised across the globe. According to this pattern, countries around the world will reach consensus on the joint fight against cybercrime, and step up investigation assistance and information sharing on cybercrime cases. The Success of E-Business in China In the area of e-business, China has made tremendous progress in the past decade. The country's e-commerce giant is called Alibaba Group. It is the world's second-largest Internet company in market value. Its Tmall online marketplace reported daily sales of 91.2 billion yuan (U.S.$14.3 billion) on this year's Singles' Day shopping spree, a 60-per cent rise from last year's 51.7 billion yuan. This success is built on strong technical support, which proves that China has become a power in this area, Xinhua commentator Jiang Xi writes. He says that those accusations that say China's Internet policies are not transparent or that the country advocates Internet censorship are entirely groundless, as the Chinese government has been working on an improved network environment. President Xi said that international cyberspace governance should feature a multilateral approach with multi-party participation, adding that "all countries should step up communication and exchange, improve dialogue and the consultation mechanism on cyberspace." "With all these efforts, China aims to build a platform for a global Internet shared and governed by all. The conference at the riverside town of Wuzhen is a starting point," Jiang concludes. UN Security Council Resolution on Syria A Fraudulent Political Solution Will Not Wash On December 18, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2254 (2015), endorsing "a road map for a peace process in Syria." It sets out an early-January timetable for UN-facilitated talks "between the Syrian government and opposition members," as well as the "outlines of a nationwide ceasefire" to begin as soon as the parties concerned "have taken initial steps towards a political transition." The resolution also calls for the formation of a "credible, inclusive and non-sectarian" government within six months and UN-supervised "free and fair elections" within 18 months. Resolution 2254 is reported to have endorsed decisions reached at the third meeting of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) held the same day in New York. According to a UN News report, the resolution was adopted unanimously after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon briefed the Security Council on his meeting earlier in the day with the ISSG. Participating countries and bodies in the ISSG are: the Arab League, China, Egypt, the European Union, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, the UK, the United Nations and the U.S. The Syrian government has not been part of the talks of this group. On December 22, news agencies reported that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem announced Syria's readiness to attend peace negotiations in Geneva. "Syria is ready to participate in the Syrian-Syrian dialogue in Geneva without any foreign interference," al-Muallem said. "We hope that this dialogue will be successful to help us in having a national unity government," he said. Al-Muallem said the government delegation would be ready as soon as Damascus received a list of the opposition delegates due to attend the talks and the "terrorist organizations to be barred from the negotiations." The Syrian foreign minister also said Damascus will form a constitutional committee to seek a new constitution with new election laws. The parliamentary elections, al-Muallem said, will be held "within the period of 18 months, more or less." However, while Syria has accepted negotiations and a political settlement of the terrible war going on in that country, and Resolution 2254 states, "The Syrian people will decide the future of Syria," the positions of the U.S., Britain, France, Canada and NATO powers that instigated the conflict in the first place to achieve regime change are still suspect. If their aim continues to be to impose a solution on Syria on the basis of outside interference in that country's internal affairs and to create pretexts to remove the Assad government through the force of arms, it will not wash. Notably absent from the remarks of Ban Ki-moon; John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State; Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion and others about Resolution 2254, is the fact that the terrorist groups financed and armed by the U.S. and NATO powers do not form a legitimate opposition. This has been the impediment to finding a political solution in Syria. If the U.S. and NATO powers continue to interfere in Syria's internal affairs and do not permit a political solution, then they will continue to bear the blame for the death and destruction wreaked upon the Syrian people. Ban Ki-Moon said that "the Syrian conflict had begun with peaceful demands for political change, yet had soon become defined by internal, regional and international divisions, including within the Security Council. Almost five years later, the country was in ruins, with millions of its people scattered across the world and a 'whirlwind' of radicalism and sectarianism challenging global security." U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the resolution "sent a clear message that now was the time to stop the killing in Syria." Kerry made it clear that the U.S. would not stop meddling when he said that one of President Barack Obama's goals was to "support friends and ensure that instability in Syria did not spread." President Assad "had lost the ability and credibility to unite the country and that if the war was to end, it would be imperative that the Syrian people agree on a different Government," Kerry said, stating once again that the outcome of the Syrian elections must suit the U.S. On December 19, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion issued a statement in which he also purported to endorse a political solution. "Canada is pleased with the progress made by the ISSG as it continues to lay the groundwork for negotiations. We believe a political solution is the only way to end the Syrian crisis," Dion said. He did not repeat the recent statement of Canada's Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan who said, "I'm of the opinion that President Assad, he does need to go, given the complexity of the problem and the horrible atrocities that have been committed to his own people... What we've got to keep in mind here is how did this whole problem start? That Assad's regime has killed more of its own people than even Daesh [ISIS] actually has." It thus remains to be seen what Canada means by "a political solution." The government must uphold the principles of the UN Charter and reject trying to achieve regime change no matter the harm done to the Syrian people who must be free to decide their own future themselves. The peoples of the region have bitter experience with talk of "a road map for peace" that is organized to fail, as has been the case with Palestine. The modus operandi is that the party which does not want peace and refuses to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people (Israel) accuses the Palestinians of obstructing peace because they will not submit to the crimes of the occupation. If once again only what is acceptable to the U.S., other NATO powers and their proxies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Turkey, is permitted to take place, it will not wash. TML Weekly calls on all Canadians to carefully assess these developments and demand that the Government of Canada support a genuine peace process in Syria which upholds the UN Charter and the rights of the Syrian people to chart their own future. Canada must get out of the business of regime change and become a factor for peace in the world. Democratic People's Republic of Korea U.S. Brings Fraudulent Charges of "Human Rights Violations" to UN Security Council On December 10, International Human Rights Day, the United States used its influence as President of the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC) to put on the agenda of the UNSC alleged "human rights violations" in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and to invite calls for the DPRK to be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is the second year in a row that the U.S. has tried these foul tactics. As a result of the pressure exerted on most of the UNSC members, the U.S. was able to force this issue onto the agenda over the objections of Russia and China, who pointed out that the UNSC is not the place to discuss the human rights record of any member country of the UN -- that being the role of the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review. China's representative also pointed out that human rights in the DPRK have nothing to do with issues of international peace and security, which is the mandate of the UNSC. All peace-loving people in Canada and around the world must condemn this sinister move by the U.S. to direct spurious accusations against the DPRK about its supposed record of "human rights violations." In a just world, it is the U.S. that would be forced to make reparations for the crimes it has committed for over a century against peace and humanity, and for its war crimes against the peoples worldwide. The hands of the U.S. imperialists are dripping with the blood of the victims of its human rights violations against its own people and the peoples of the world, especially the Korean people, who paid dearly for the Korean War which was instigated by the U.S.

Daejeon massacre during Korean war.

The Korean War (1950-53) was a criminal war of aggression conducted against the Korean people by the U.S. and its allies, including Canada, under the false flag of the United Nations. More than 4 million Koreans were killed in the slaughter. Carpet bombing was used to destroy dams, power lines and waterways in the DPRK and to lay to waste every city, town and village in the country. The U.S. military also carried out civilian massacres, chemical and biological warfare, and other war crimes against the people of the DPRK. The U.S. has yet to take responsibility for its criminal role in launching the genocidal war of annihilation against the Korean people and still refuses to sign a peace treaty with the DPRK to formally replace the Korean Armistice Agreement which was signed in 1953. Its decades of hostile and threatening measures against the DPRK prove that the U.S. only considered the Armistice Agreement to be a temporary lull in which it could re-arm with even more powerful weapons and prepare to launch another devastating war for the conquest of the Korean peninsula. The ongoing annual U.S.-south Korea joint military exercises, which increasingly involve Japan, continue to threaten peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region of northeast Asia. These military exercises frequently simulate a nuclear-armed attack and are openly aimed at regime change in the DPRK, in violation of the supreme principle enshrined in international law of respect for the sovereignty of every nation and the right of each nation's people to choose their own form of governance. As well, the U.S. has repeatedly sabotaged the Six Party Talks on de-nuclearizing the Korean peninsula, which are now stalled because of the arrogant insistence of the U.S. on unilateral disarmament by the DPRK. The U.S. attempts to justify its continued military occupation of south Korea, which serves its global geo-political interests, by falsely pointing the finger at the DPRK as the main threat to peace when in fact it is the U.S. that illegally introduced nuclear weapons into the region and continues to surround the Korean peninsula with its nuclear-armed warships. It must be pointed out that, within these conditions, the DPRK is forced to divert a considerable part of its national budget -- which it would otherwise use for social and economic development -- to the military in order to defend its sovereignty in the face of the constant U.S. military threats and nuclear blackmail. The U.S. has yet to lift the illegal political and economic sanctions that it imposed on the DPRK at the time of the Korean War and that have been expanded in recent years as a result of the hostile manoeuvring of the U.S. at the UN and in the UNSC. This has caused the DPRK government and people great hardship because of the inability to establish normal diplomatic and economic relations for mutual benefit with those countries under U.S. dictate, including Canada. The sanctions have resulted in the loss of billions of dollars in trade revenue for the DPRK. As well, the right of the people of the DPRK to UN-sponsored food programs, natural disaster relief and other humanitarian aid has been politicized by the U.S. through the UN aid agencies and made conditional on the DPRK "improving its human rights record" which is an outrageous example of big-power high-handedness. In the recent period, the justification given by the U.S. and its allies for targeting the DPRK for its alleged human rights violations is the spurious "report" of the UN Human Rights Council's Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the state of human rights in the DPRK. The COI was launched in 2013 as a result of pressure by the U.S. and its allies on the Human Rights Council. The three-member COI, of dubious credentials and motives, presented its "report" in 2014. From the outset, the COI's aim was not to find the facts about the state of human rights in the DPRK, but to justify regime change in an independent, self-reliant, socialist country that stands in the way of the U.S. taking over the whole Korean peninsula as a base from which to threaten and launch war and aggression in northeast Asia. The COI's collection of lies and disinformation culled from self-admitted second- and third-hand sources, and the ever-changing testimonies of so-called "North Korean defectors," ends by noting that it is the "responsibility" of the "international community" to deliver "an effective response" to the DPRK's so-called human rights violations "because of the unresolved legacy of the Korean War." In other words, it is necessary for the U.S. and its allies (their "responsibility") to bring about regime change in the DPRK today, under the false pretext of "human rights violations," because they failed to force the DPRK to surrender during the Korean War (which for them is "the unresolved legacy of the Korean War"). The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued a statement on December 12 that denounced the U.S. for embroiling the UNSC in unjustly targeting the country and its leadership on the spurious grounds of its "human rights record." The statement called on the UNSC to be true to its mandate and concern itself with the real issues that threaten global peace and security, including the annual U.S.-south Korean joint military exercises. It also pointed out that the UNSC should address itself to the need for a peace treaty between the U.S. and the DPRK to bring a formal end to the Korean War, a matter that was raised by the DPRK on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the UN earlier this year. The Foreign Minister reiterated that the DPRK will affirm its right to self-determination, in the face of the high-handed tactics of the U.S. at the UNSC, by taking strong counter-measures to affirm its right to be. Provocative Resolution at UN Third Committee The government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) denounced and rejected the draft "resolution on the human rights situation in the DPRK" contained in document A/C.3/70/L.35 which was jointly sponsored by the European Union (EU) and Japan at the Third Committee of the 70th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on November 19. In a November 21 statement, the DPRK called the resolution a provocation, the result of political manoeuvring by the U.S. along with the European Union and Japan that is part of a criminal attempt to incite regime change in the DPRK, and which has no basis in fact. The DPRK Foreign Ministry statement also issued November 21 called the resolution "a vivid expression of the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK and a typical example of politicization of human rights, selectivity and double standards." The statement also points out that the sponsors of the resolution have no credibility whatsoever in matters concerning human rights, as they themselves abuse human rights around the world with impunity and must be brought to justice. The statement underscores that the U.S., which has masterminded this fraudulent resolution, is the biggest violator of human rights in the world. It accuses the EU of widespread violations of the rights of refugees and denounces Japan which has yet to apologize or make reparations for past crimes committed against the Korean, Chinese and other peoples during the Second World War. More to the point, the statement informs that the DPRK has on a number of occasions invited officials from the EU and the UN High Human Rights Council to visit the DPRK and see for themselves the state of human rights in the country. It emphasizes that if these officials had accepted these invitations and come with an open mind and sincere wish to investigate and engage the government of the DPRK on the matter of human rights, they would see with their own eyes the high priority that the DPRK government puts on the well-being and rights of the people. Instead, it is noted, these officials reject the invitations under one pretext or another, gather stories from "defectors from the North" who are often criminals and fleeing punishment for their crimes "against their country and their kith and kin." Such spurious testimony forms the basis for bogus reports and resolutions against so-called human rights violations in the DPRK, and fuels calls for regime change. The DPRK will never accept this, the statement points out. The DPRK warns that the tragic events unfolding in the Middle East and other places, where nations and peoples are thrown into chaos and war, clearly show what happens when alien and hostile forces are allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of a country. It points out that sovereignty is the condition in which human rights flourish, and therefore, the DPRK quite rightly takes a stand in defence of its independence and sovereignty at all costs. The statement of the DPRK Foreign Ministry concludes by affirming the DPRK's right to be and that it will take all measures needed to safeguard its socialist state which is the foundation on which the citizens of the country enjoy their rights. TML Weekly fully supports the just stand of the DPRK against the provocative anti-human rights resolution that the EU and Japan sponsored in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly at the behest of the U.S. It calls on all peace- and justice-loving people in Canada and around the world to stand with the government and people of the DPRK in defence of their right to be. The U.S. and EU are utterly lacking in credibility on human rights because they actively commit war crimes, crimes against peace and rights violations via military aggression, invasions and occupations in the present day. Meanwhile, on September 18, in the face of widespread demonstrations by the Japanese people and the people of Okinawa, the Abe government in Japan passed so-called security laws in the name of defending "peace" that allow Japanese troops to be sent abroad and engage in imperialist war and aggression for the first time since 1945. History shows that the imperialists are past-masters of the Nazi technique of the big lie in the modern era, fabricating evidence to justify aggression and war, and repeating it via their imperialist monopoly media mouthpieces to try to sow doubt and provide pretexts to go to war against the DPRK. TML Weekly calls on everyone to be wary of the accusations of human rights violations made by the imperialists and their lackeys and to inform themselves through TML Weekly, news from the DPRK and other progressive and fair-minded sources about the real situation in the DPRK. Human rights can only be defended on a principled basis in respect of international laws and norms, not on an arbitrary basis that seeks to further narrow, self-serving and ulterior motives. Marzuki Darusman and Alleged Human Rights Violations in the DPRK On November 26, the UN News Centre released a statement noting that in the opinion of Marzuki Darusman, UN Special Rapporteur for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the human rights situation in that country has not improved since the release of the controversial 2014 report issued by the UN Human Rights Council's Commission of Inquiry (COI) into human rights in the DPRK. Darusman is touted as a "UN expert on the situation of human rights in the DPRK" but has never been allowed to set foot there. What other credentials qualify Darusman as a defender of human rights in the DPRK or elsewhere? Darusman is a lawyer, former Attorney-General of Indonesia and diplomat who was part of the Suharto regime for 15 years, 1984-1998. President Suharto was brought to power by a bloody, U.S.-engineered, anti-communist military coup d'état in 1965, in which an estimated one to two million communists and leftists were massacred. Over the 32 years of its rule, the Suharto regime was responsible for hundreds of thousands of people killed and many others jailed and tortured for standing up for their rights. Where was Darusman in all this? It would seem that it was only after the end of Suharto's regime, which was brought down by the popular opposition of the Indonesian people in 1998, that Darusman as Attorney General (1999-2001) undertook token legal action against Suharto and some of his cronies to gain some credentials. Suharto was never punished and victims of Suharto's crimes are still looking for justice. Thus it becomes clear why Darusman, with his anti-communist background and association with brutal human rights violations as part of the U.S. containment of communism, has never been invited to the DPRK. His status of persona non grata in the DPRK is compounded by his participation in the COI with two others of equally dubious credentials. Of course, as far as those who wish to isolate the DPRK are concerned, Darusman's qualifications are a perfect match for their aims to disinform about the facts of life in the DPRK. The COI's report was based on fabricated "evidence" and hearsay from paid "defectors," the South Korean secret service, various U.S. anti-DPRK organizations and others, so Darusman is in good company. Similarly, in the November 26 UN news report, Darusman talks about meeting some members of south Korean families that had visited their family members in the north at Mount Kumgang in the DPRK on October 20. Darusman remarked that "the separation of families is not only a humanitarian issue, but should be recognized as a human rights violation in and of itself." Of course this is an odious insinuation to suggest that it is the DPRK, the unfailing champion of Korean reunification, that is responsible for this state of affairs. It is disinformation to cover up that it is the U.S. imperialists and servile south Korean governments that have kept families and the nation separated by force since the end of the Second World War, including through the waging of the Korean War. Neither does Darusman recognize as a violation of human rights the illegal and brutal political and economic embargo that the U.S. has imposed on the DPRK nor does he acknowledge the DPRK's tremendous efforts to improve the standard of living of the people despite the embargo and sanctions. Further, he does not acknowledge that the DPRK ensures its people's rights by raising their standard of living, defending their nation against foreign aggression, fighting for the reunification of Korea and ensuring peace on the Korean peninsula. The DPRK is right to insist that it will gladly co-operate with anyone from the UN who comes to that country with an open mind and to engage respectfully on the issue of human rights, but not with people who have another agenda. The Pentagon's Missionary Spies On May 10, 2007, in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush presided over a ceremony honoring the nation's most accomplished community service leaders. Among those collecting a President's Volunteer Service Award that afternoon was Kay Hiramine, the Colorado-based founder of a multi-million dollar humanitarian organization.

Kay Harimine at the White House with then-President George W. Bush in 2007.

Hiramine's NGO, Humanitarian International Services Group, or HISG, won special praise from the president for having demonstrated how a private charity could step in quickly in response to a crisis. "In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina," read Hiramine's citation, "HISG's team launched a private sector operation center in Houston that mobilized over 1,500 volunteers into the disaster zone within one month after the hurricane." But as the evangelical Christian Hiramine crossed the stage to shake hands with President Bush and receive his award, he was hiding a key fact from those in attendance: He was a Pentagon spy whose NGO was funded through a highly classified Defense Department program. The secret Pentagon program, which dates back to December 2004, continued well into the Obama presidency. It was the brainchild of a senior Defense Department intelligence official of the Bush administration, Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin. Boykin, an evangelical Christian who ran into criticism in 2003 for his statements about Islam, settled on the ruse of the NGO as he was seeking new and unorthodox ways to penetrate North Korea. Long a source of great concern to the U.S. and Western Europe because of its nuclear program, North Korea was the most difficult intelligence target for the U.S. "We had nothing inside North Korea," one former military official familiar with U.S. efforts in the country told me. "Zero." But Hiramine's NGO, by offering humanitarian aid to the country's desperate population, was able to go where others could not. It is unclear how many HISG executives beyond Hiramine knew about the operation; Hiramine did not respond to repeated requests for comment and neither did any of his senior colleagues. Few, if any, of the rest of the organization's staff and volunteers had any knowledge about its role as a Pentagon front, according to former HISG employees and former military officials. The revelation that the Pentagon used an NGO and unwitting humanitarian volunteers for intelligence gathering is the result of a months-long investigation by The Intercept. In the course of the investigation, more than a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials, humanitarian aid workers, missionaries, U.S. officials, and former HISG staffers were interviewed. The U.S. government officials who were familiar with the Pentagon operation and HISG's role asked for anonymity because discussing classified military and intelligence matters would put them at risk of prosecution. The Pentagon had no comment on HISG or the espionage operations in North Korea. Before it was finally dismantled in 2013, Hiramine's organization received millions in funding from the Pentagon through a complex web of organizations designed to mask the origin of the cash, according to one of the former military officials familiar with the program, as well as documentation reviewed for this article. The use of HISG for espionage was "beyond the pale" of what the U.S. government should be allowed to do, said Sam Worthington, president of InterAction, an association of nearly 200 American NGOs. The practice of using humanitarian workers as spies "violates international principles" and puts legitimate aid and development workers at risk, he argued. "It is unacceptable that the Pentagon or any other U.S. agency use nonprofits for intelligence gathering," Worthington said. "It is a violation of the basic trust between the U.S. government and its civic sector." *** HISG was established shortly after 9/11, when Hiramine led a group of three friends in creating a humanitarian organization that they hoped could provide disaster relief and sustainable development in poor and war-torn countries around the world, according to the organization's incorporation documents. In its first two years, HISG was little more than a fledgling faith-based charity. Just after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Hiramine and his friends shipped medical supplies to a hospital there. By 2003, HISG had collaborated with a small Pentagon group called the Afghanistan Reachback Office, which was set up to coordinate reconstruction activities. That same year, Boykin was named deputy in the newly created office of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Boykin had a special operations career that spanned many of the U.S. military's most high-risk missions prior to 9/11. He served as commander of the Army's most elite unit, commonly known as Delta Force, and oversaw the Black Hawk Down mission in Somalia in 1993 and the hunt for Pablo Escobar in Colombia. With the war on terror intensifying, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld charged Boykin and his superior, Stephen Cambone, with the task of increasing the department's ability to conduct intelligence operations independent from the CIA. Cambone and Boykin concluded that the Pentagon had ceded too much of its intelligence-gathering role in the preceding decades to the CIA, and it was time to recalibrate the balance. The CIA was kept in the loop. Within a year of his arrival to his new position at the Pentagon, Boykin dispatched a Pentagon staffer to the CIA to help coordinate the new and increased human intelligence operations abroad. According to former military officials, Boykin took a page from the CIA's playbook and looked for ways to provide cover for Pentagon espionage operations. Hiramine's group was one of several NGOs used by the Pentagon in this way. Some, like HISG, already existed as fledgling organizations, while others were created from scratch by the Pentagon. The espionage effort was one of the most secretive programs at the Pentagon, called an unacknowledged and waived "special access program," or SAP. The designation meant that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was required only to brief the chair and ranking members of both appropriations and armed services committees, who were not allowed to take notes or bring in staffers. The Defense Department intelligence operations primarily focused on counterterrorism, but the efforts also extended to Iran and North Korea, where the military sought elusive intelligence on those countries' nuclear programs. That's where HISG came in. At the time the Pentagon program launched, the NGO had been responsible for many shipments of medical equipment, clothing, and disaster relief supplies around the world. On at least one occasion in the period between 2004 and 2006, Hiramine, through HISG, helped coordinate a humanitarian shipment to North Korea. The charity's offer of donated clothing was the kind of faith-based donation the North Korean government would occasionally accept to help its population endure the country's harsh winters. Unbeknownst to the North Korean government, however, underneath the clothing was a hidden compartment containing scores of bibles. Shipping bibles into North Korea was risky -- North Korea severely restricts any religious activities that deviate from communist ideology. But that was the point -- if Hiramine's bibles could make it, the Pentagon would know that it could use the same smuggling method to get military sensors and equipment into the country. "We sent the bibles in as a test run," a former senior Pentagon official told me. "They got through without the North Koreans discovering them." The Pentagon tasked Hiramine with gathering the intelligence it needed inside North Korea, and Hiramine would in turn utilize HISG's access to the country to complete the assignments, according to two former military officials with knowledge of the effort. Hiramine, in his role as CEO of HISG, tapped Christian missionaries, aid workers, and Chinese smugglers to move equipment into and around North Korea -- none of whom had any idea that they were part of a secret Pentagon operation. On at least two different occasions, in 2007 and again in 2010, Hiramine entered North Korea under humanitarian cover, according to a former HISG employee familiar with his travel. HISG documents show that the organization boasted of having shipped winter clothing, including "ski jackets," into North Korea during the NGO's first 10 years of operation. Because American intelligence has so few assets inside North Korea, much of Hiramine's task was to find transportation routes to move military equipment -- and potentially clandestine operatives -- in and around the country. The Pentagon would eventually move sensors and small radio beacons through Hiramine's transportation network, according to another former military official. Much of what Hiramine was doing was what the military refers to as "operational preparation of the environment," or OPE, a category that encompasses clandestine intelligence gathering and prepositioning equipment inside a country for future conflicts. "We needed collection devices, spoofers" -- used to disrupt North Korean military devices or radio signals -- "and [equipment] to measure nuclear anomalies," the same former military official told me. The military hardware also included shortwave radios that could be used to help a downed pilot to escape in the event of a future conflict with North Korea. None of the former officials with knowledge of the program whom I spoke with would say where exactly the equipment was positioned or describe the intelligence that Hiramine was able to gather, citing the sensitivity of the matter. But two former officials said the intelligence and the network used to gain access inside the country were formally distributed to the CIA in what the U.S. intelligence community calls IIRs, or "intelligence information reports," indicating the CIA was aware the Pentagon was using an NGO to conduct the operations. The CIA referred all questions about Hiramine's intelligence reports to the Pentagon. "If true, to use unwitting aid workers on behalf of an intelligence operation, people who genuinely do humanitarian work, to turn their efforts into intel collection is unacceptable," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who served on the House Intelligence Committee from 2007 until this year. Schakowsky said she was unaware of the program, and unaware of any briefings given to the committee chair and ranking members. "Now we have people who have been hired to do some good work and become unwitting accomplices to an intelligence mission? They can face all kinds of retaliation. It is completely unacceptable," Schakowsky said. *** It is unclear how exactly Hiramine became involved in the Pentagon espionage effort, but his nonprofit presented a convenient vehicle for the Pentagon to hide intelligence-gathering missions and shipments of clandestine military equipment into denied areas. Using an approach pioneered by the CIA, the Pentagon obscured the origin of the funding for the organization. "If you expose the money, you expose the network," said a former military official who is critical of the program's lack of oversight. The organization received one stream of funding via a for-profit company called Private Sector Consulting, which was run by Hiramine, his partner Michael McCausland, and other HISG executives, and shared addresses and phone numbers with HISG in Colorado, according to public records. HISG reported in 2009 that it had no paid employees; its 30 staffers were designated "volunteers." According to three people who worked for HISG, however, the salaries and benefits of the NGO's employees were paid by the consulting firm. In 2009, for example, tax records show that Hiramine drew no salary as the head of Humanitarian International Services Group, yet earned $281,351 from Private Sector Consulting. "It was our pure funding that made" HISG, one of the former military officials told me, explaining how the Pentagon provided the money for salaries to Private Sector Consulting. A second revenue stream arrived at HISG via a private trust and another nonprofit, Working Partners Foundation, which was incorporated in late 2004, around the same time that Private Sector Consulting was launched and the Pentagon program was rolled out. Here's how it worked. The Pentagon funneled money to the private fund, which was run out of a law office in Minnetonka, Minnesota, according to a former military official familiar with the arrangement. The fund, called New Millennium Trust, was run by retired Army Col. Thomas Lujan. Lujan also had a historical distinction, according to an online bio: He was the first military lawyer assigned to Delta Force -- and would have known Boykin most of his professional career. According to a public website, Lujan, who retired in 1998, still maintains top-secret government clearance. Lujan declined to comment. Next, according to tax filings, New Millennium Trust would donate money to Working Partners Foundation, which was run by a prominent Colorado car dealer named Yale King starting in October 2004. King was also a "dear friend" of Boykin. In his autobiography, Never Surrender, Boykin recalled receiving a fax from King while recuperating from an injury sustained during an attack on the U.S. base at Mogadishu's airport. The fax consisted of a single Biblical verse. "I can't explain why Yale sent that fax halfway around the world when he did," Boykin wrote, "but I felt it was exactly the message God wanted me to hear." By 2006, responsibility for the program shifted away from Boykin. He retired in the summer of 2007. But the former military official critical of the effort called the HISG operation a "jobs program" for Boykin's friends and former military colleagues. Boykin did not respond to requests for comment. King earned $252,000 as the director of Working Partners Foundation in 2006. According to tax records, New Millennium Trust was the sole funder of Working Partners Foundation. The Pentagon money passed through King's foundation, which made donations to Hiramine and HISG. In total, New Millennium Trust gave Working Partners Foundation $11.9 million between 2005 and 2014. Working Partners Foundation, in turn, passed $6.5 million to HISG between 2005 and 2012, according to tax filings. To help Working Partners maintain the appearance of a legitimate charity, each year the foundation donated smaller amounts of cash to bona fide NGOs, such as Catholic Relief Services, which says it had no knowledge of any Pentagon link to the money. In at least one case, according to tax filings, Working Partners gave roughly $200,000 to a U.S.-based ministry that "deliver[s] Bibles to the persecuted church in the Gospel restricted nation of North Korea." Working Partners also funneled almost $500,000 to a medical charity run by Yale King's wife in the first five years after Working Partners was established, according to tax records. (King eventually moved Working Partners to Palm Beach, Florida, where it was transferred to a tax and estate lawyer named Robert Simses. Simses declined to comment, and King did not respond to multiple requests.) One of the former military officials estimated that the Pentagon provided at least $15 million to HISG over the course of the program through these revenue streams. "Kay never talked about where we got our funding from," said Tom Jennings, who worked as HISG's Asia program director for six years. "And I never felt that I was supposed to ask about it." Jennings said he didn't know that Hiramine had worked for the Pentagon on a secret espionage program, and now fears the revelations that HISG was funded by the Pentagon could taint the legitimate disaster relief and development programs he helped lead. According to Hiramine's LinkedIn profile, Private Sector Consulting "provided support services," such as disaster response, to government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and [Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)]. "I warned them they had to keep Private Sector Consulting separate," said a former HISG employee, who was familiar with some of the contracts with the U.S. government. (This individual still works in humanitarian aid and did not want to be publicly associated with a Pentagon espionage program so was granted anonymity.) The former employee "didn't have a clue" the nonprofit group was fronting for the Pentagon.

Click to enlarge.

*** Aside from Hiramine and possibly other top executives, those who worked for HISG were never aware they were involved in a Pentagon intelligence program, or that Hiramine was working for the U.S. government, according to two former military officials. "They were never witting," said the former senior Pentagon official. "That was the point." In all, HISG operated in more than 30 countries, significantly funded by the Pentagon. According to former employees, public records, and HISG's former website, the nonprofit conducted disaster relief; provided food, medical supplies, and clothing; and helped start small businesses in countries including Niger, Mali, Ethiopia, Kenya, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and China. "They gave us a tremendous latitude to do tremendous amounts of good," Jennings said. "We were able to go to the poor in villages, train them how to start businesses and create jobs, so that they could begin to lift themselves out of poverty and regain their self-dignity. Looking back, that was one of the most fulfilling times in my life." But behind all the global charity work was an ulterior motive for military officials: The longer HISG operated and became more legitimate, the more opportunities would be available to U.S. military and intelligence officials to run operations in other countries as they had in North Korea. In other words, Hiramine's ability to use HISG to form partnerships and working relationships with other unsuspecting aid workers and missionaries would give the Pentagon more places to spy, according to one of the former military officials. That official would not say whether Hiramine was tasked with operating in countries besides North Korea. Hiramine and HISG were successful enough in their humanitarian efforts to garner that 2007 honor, the President's Volunteer Service Award. It is not known if the White House was aware that HISG was part of a Pentagon program. "If these people had been caught and tried and executed in downtown Pyongyang you'd really understand the risk," said Robert Baer, a retired CIA officer who spent more than 20 years conducting espionage operations. Using humanitarian and aid workers for gathering intelligence has always been risky. U.S. intelligence policy prohibits using American clergy, journalists, or Peace Corps volunteers as a cover to conduct espionage. Using NGOs is not strictly prohibited, but though it is not unprecedented, it is dangerous. In recent years, the risk of using legitimate aid workers as cover for spying has had deadly repercussions. In 2011, the CIA directed a Pakistani doctor to collect DNA samples of the suspected family members of Osama bin Laden under the guise of a hepatitis vaccination program in Abbottabad, Pakistan. After the [Osama bin Laden] raid, the Pakistani doctor was arrested and imprisoned by Pakistani authorities, and the Taliban later killed several medical professionals who were trying to conduct polio eradication campaigns, along with their guards. The Taliban claimed the vaccination program was part of a Western intelligence plot. Cases of polio, which has been eradicated in almost every country in the world, have spiked in Pakistan in recent years. In 2014, a White House adviser informed U.S. public health school deans that the CIA is no longer allowed to use vaccination programs as an intelligence cover. "The reward is almost zero given the risk because using NGOs -- especially unwitting [ones] -- produces very weak intelligence," said Robert Baer, the retired CIA officer. "This is pure Graham Greene, Our Man in Havana stuff," he continued, referring to the farcical tale of a vacuum cleaner salesman who was recruited to spy on Cuba's missile program. *** Despite starting during the Bush presidency, the North Korea espionage program continued through Obama's first term. It's unclear if the president was briefed. The White House declined to comment. In 2012, now-retired Adm. William McRaven, the commander of the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, who oversaw the Osama bin Laden raid, shut down the North Korea spying program. "McRaven told us he shut it down because he was nervous about the flap if it ever got out that the Pentagon had used a bunch of evangelicals and missionaries as spies," said one former military officer, adding that if the program had produced better intelligence McRaven would have considered keeping it up and running. McRaven did not respond to a request for comment. In January 2013, Hiramine and his fellow HISG executives announced to their employees that they were shuttering the organization. "We got no warning," said Jennings, the former HISG program director. "We had no jobs, no severance, and no explanation. All they said was 'we lost our funding.'" According to Working Partners Foundation tax returns, 2013 was the first year since it began operating in 2005 that no funds were given to HISG. Instead, the nonprofit gave roughly $700,000 -- funds that were likely allocated before McRaven ordered the program ended -- to a range of relief and nonprofit groups, including a Washington-based defense think tank. Some of HISG's infrastructure remained, but Hiramine left and his main partner, Michael McCausland, transformed what was left of HISG into a new organization called Sustainable Communities Worldwide. With HISG gone, the Pentagon began to dismantle the funding mechanisms that propped up the organization. Private Sector Consulting was dissolved in December 2013, and this year, for the first time since it was created, Working Partners Foundation did not receive any money from New Millennium Trust. According to tax filings, Working Partners wrote one final check for $475,500 to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, a division of the Treasury Department, earlier this year. "The board of directors elected to terminate the foundation and pay all funds remaining to the United States treasury to be used to reduce the public debt," according to public tax records. Working Partners was dissolved in January. In other words, Working Partners gave its remaining funds as a gift to the federal government, a strange move for a private foundation -- though not, perhaps, for one serving as cover for a now-terminated Pentagon program. Update: October 28, 2015 This report makes reference to a donation from Working Partners Foundation to Catholic Relief Services, based on Working Partners Foundation's tax filings. Catholic Relief Services, which conducted a review after publication, said its own records contained no indication it received money from Working Partners Foundation or HISG. PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME Read The Marxist-Leninist

Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca