Monthly Archives: April 2017

China, North Korea, United States

The United States should not act alone in dealing with North Korea

NORTH KOREA

While most Western political and diplomatic attention is currently focused on Syria, both in terms of the chemical weapons attack and in the aftermath of the U.S. missile strike, a potentially greater drama is taking place thousands of miles away in the East China Sea. A U.S. battle group, headed by the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, has arrived off the Korean peninsula in a show of military strength intended to warn Kim Jong-un of the consequences of his continued provocations and sabre-rattling.

President Donald Trump has indicated that Syria is less of an issue for the United States than North Korea, which continues to pose as a nemesis and direct threat to American allies in the region and even to the US west coast. In view of what transpired in Syria, the world needs to be prepared for the unexpected here, too. Mr Trump has hardly hidden his anger or intent in dealing with Pyongyang. Using his preferred vehicle for issuing executive statements – social media networking site Twitter – he stated: ‘North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them.’

In another message, he appeared to link a trade rapprochement with China if Beijing were willing to help contain the threat posed by North Korea. Since Chinese president Xi Jinping was in America for trade talks with Mr Trump last week it must be assumed that part of their discussions involved tactics for dealing with North Korea. The U.S. have a clear national security interest in stopping further conflagration and proliferation of its nuclear weapons programme and China has a clear regional interest in averting the chaos that would be caused by a war on the peninsula.

A common approach, however, does appear to be developing: talks between Chinese and South Korean ministers have agreed ‘strong additional measures’ if Kim Jong-un conducts further nuclear or missile tests. China has already imposed economic sanctions including a ban of all imports of North Korean coal.

Pyongyang’s irrationality makes it essential that America does not act unilaterally. This cannot be allowed to happen. President Xi was sufficiently concerned to telephone the White House and assure Mr Trump that China was fully ‘committed to the goal of denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula’ but has also emphasised the need to resolve problems through peaceful means. A flashpoint could come within the next 48 hours, birthday of the state’s founder Kim Il-sung, or later this month when the ruling party celebrates its 85th anniversary. If the regime decides to fire missiles to mark one of these occasions, China and America must respond in concert.

Appendage:

North Korea Arsenal

Standard
Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

US and Russia agree on Syria probe

MOSCOW

Lavrov and Tillerson

Sergey Lavrov and Rex Tillerson meet in Moscow and have agreed that a U.N. probe is now necessary following the chemical weapons attack in Syria on April 4.

The United States and Russia have agreed to work together on an international investigation of the Syrian chemical weapons attack last week. Amid a fierce dispute over Syria and retaliatory American missile strikes the two sides appear to be striving in salvaging ties. At the heart of the dispute is who was responsible for the use of banned chemical gases against innocent civilians. Washington blames Russia’s ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, while Moscow says Syrian rebels are responsible.

After a day of intense discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the former Cold War foes agreed a U.N. probe of events in northern Syria on April 4 was necessary. More than 80 people were killed in what the U.S. has described as a nerve gas attack that Assad’s forces undoubtedly carried out. Russia says rebels dispersed whatever chemical agent was found, which the Trump administration calls a “disinformation campaign”.

The outcome of those discussions came after Russian President Vladimir Putin met the top American diplomat for almost two hours to see if they could rescue relations between the world’s mightiest military powers. Russia’s alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election also hovered over the first face-to-face encounter between Putin and a Trump administration Cabinet member.

“There is a low level of trust between our two countries,” Tillerson said candidly.

He said working groups would be established to improve U.S.-Russian ties and identify problems. He said the two sides would also discuss disagreements on Syria and how to end the country’s six-year civil war.

The most immediate dispute concerned culpability for the chemical weapons, though broader disagreements over everything from Ukraine to Russia’s support for once-fringe candidates in European elections are among other contentious points.

Steeped in geopolitical intrigue, the meeting between Putin and Tillerson wasn’t formally confirmed until the last minute, following days of speculation about whether the Russian would refuse to grant the former oil executive an audience. Putin’s decision to host Tillerson signalled Moscow’s intent to maintain communication with the U.S. even as the countries publicly bash each other with louder insinuations and forced rhetoric.

The men know each other well from Tillerson’s days as Exxon Mobil CEO. Putin had even granted Tillerson a friendship honour.

Standard
G7, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States

Boris Johnson is right in cancelling his Moscow trip

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Boris Johnson was due for crunch talks with Russia over the Syria crisis but cancelled the trip.

The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has come under fire both from Russia and political opponents at home for pulling out of a planned visit to Moscow in the wake of the Syrian chemical weapon atrocity.

Rather than travelling to Moscow to meet Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, he travelled to Italy for a G7 meeting, where he will seek political consensus for Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull his troops from Syria.

His Russian visit would have been the first by a United Kingdom Foreign Secretary in five years and was cancelled after discussions with the US, which is sending Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow to deliver a “clear and co-ordinated” message to the Kremlin. It has inevitably opened Mr Johnson to the charge that he has ceded our diplomatic position to the US and left the UK with little by way of a credible independent voice of its own.

Moscow has predictably seized on this point, saying his decision casts doubt on the value of speaking to the UK “which does not have its own position on the majority of present-day issues, nor does it have real influence on the course of international affairs, as it remains ‘in the shadow’ of its strategic partners.”

But that should not be allowed to be a smokescreen by missing the greater issue at stake here: the Assad regime did indeed cross a line on a bombing mission which resulted in the use of chemical weapons against civilians and children in particular.

It is surely now up to President Putin who has defended the Assad regime to distance himself from an action that has outraged the world and to bring pressure to bear to ensure that there is no repetition of this appalling crime.

Indeed, until there is some clear indication from Moscow that it is open to movement on this point, the most appropriate response from the UK would be to leave in no doubt Russia’s isolation from normal diplomatic exchanges. These proceed on the basis of a shared commitment to respect for international law and UN-approved protocols that govern behaviour in armed conflict.

The ball is now firmly in Moscow’s court. And now is the time to press home the point that those who have backed the Syrian regime and extended Assad’s grip on power cannot be expected to enjoy normal diplomatic courtesies. The Foreign Secretary’s decision to lend UK support to a joint G7 call for a response is likely to carry more clout than the UK pleading on its own. Indeed, it is just the sort of co-ordinated international response that opposition parties would be urging in this situation.

Standard