Government, History, North Korea, Politics, South Korea, United Nations, United States

North Korea: Can Kim Jong-un really be trusted?

KOREAN PENINSULA

WHEN Ronald Reagan was locked in crucial talks with the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the former US president liked to rely on a favourite adage of his: ‘Trust, but verify.’

In the wake of North Korean president Kim Jong-un’s extraordinary peace overtures, the Western world is being asked to trust a tyrant who has murdered his people in their thousands.

As of now, though, we have no way to verify whether he is acting in good faith.

It is, after all, only a few months since Kim’s reckless missile tests, which included firing one rocket capable of bearing a military payload over Japan and into the sea on the other side.

That single reckless act brought us as close to a new Korean War as we have been for some time.

Such relentless belligerence makes his sudden grinning overtures to South Korea’s leader all the more astonishing. The events of the past few days – the hand-holding, the warm speeches, and the language of peace – were all intended to dazzle us. But we cannot afford to be naïve.

Yet, if it is impossible to trust Kim, we should at least attempt to understand his aims. That will help us gauge whether this attempt at rapprochement between North Korea and South Korea is more than superficial. It is claimed by the North Korean leader to be the end of the conflict that stems back to 1950.

The enmity that has riven the Korean peninsula dates to the end of the Second World War, when America and the Soviet Union agreed to split control of the former Japanese colony.

That quickly led to a power grab by North Korea, which invaded the South. American troops led the UN fightback and, although the war ended in 1953, no peace treaty was officially signed.

Since then, North Korea has become ever more isolated, as the Kim dynastic line tightened their grip as dictators. Whatever Kim Jong-un said about peace in the last few days, he has no intention of giving up power now.

 

HIS grandfather, Kim Il-sung, and his father, Kim Jong-Il, dominated their people, but the latest in the family line has shown himself more ruthless – and, some would say, dangerous – than either.

Family rivals have been brutally disposed of. His uncle was savagely executed. He had one cousin burnt alive with a flame thrower, according to South Korean reports. His half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, was assassinated with a nerve agent in February last year.

Many in the West would say we should not deal with such a man, and that any attempt at diplomacy would be immoral. Yet there are historical precedents which suggest otherwise. In 1972, US President Richard Nixon amazed the world by opening diplomatic discussions with China, whose leader Mao Tse-tung was responsible for at least 60million deaths.

Mao was a monster, but by negotiating with him Nixon laid the groundwork for an end to the Vietnam War, and usher in economic changes in China that eventually saw the introduction of capitalism there.

Today, President Donald Trump regards Nixon as a role model, a president who was willing to think the unthinkable. And like Nixon before him, Trump finds it easier than a Democratic president might to engage with Communists, because he will not be suspected of naïve Left-leaning sympathies.

There’s little doubt that Trump’s bombastic dealings with North Korea in recent months have had a part to play in the events of recent days.

His brand of ‘diplomacy’ might have been comical if it were not so inflammatory. His outbursts on Twitter, dubbing Kim the ‘little rocket man’, used the language of the playground. Some might suggest that if there is one thing that unsettles a lunatic, it’s being confronted by an even more powerful lunatic.

The US President’s rationale was that calmly reasoned rhetoric had got his predecessors in the White House precisely nowhere with Pyongyang. The only way of getting through, he felt, was to stick a megaphone against his opponent’s ear, and shout insults. After months of knockabout threats on both sides, Trump suddenly announced last month that he would be willing to meet Kim in May or June to discuss ‘de-nuking’ the Korean peninsula.

That was not the only indication that change was afoot. Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA director, made a secret visit to North Korea over the Easter period when he met Kim, a few days after the North Korean leader visited China for talks.

So, while Kim’s startling proclamations came as a genuine surprise, there have certainly been clues it was becoming a possibility.

In the short term, no doubt, the reduction of tension in the region must be a good thing.

 

THE Japanese will be watching with concern, however, because both North and South Korea view some of Japan’s islands as disputed territory and might wish to reclaim them.

The American have worries, too. Like Trump the Korean leaders talked about ‘denuclearisation’ of the peninsula. But that would also mean the removal of any nuclear weapons the US may have in the region, or even America being asked to dismantle its military bases in the South altogether.

And while Kim might be willing to allow American inspectors in to check that work at his known nuclear facilities has been shut down, it’s ludicrous to suppose he would welcome US oversight across his entire, vast military machine.

As long as some of his Army, comprising more than one million troops, is unseen, we cannot be certain that he is not hiding another atomic weapons programme, as was the case after a similar deal was struck in 1994.

And what about the question of reuniting the two nations, as we saw with East and West Germany in 1990.

The South Koreans want reunification – but not yet. They could certainly never accept Kim as ruler of both countries. And though they are a wealthy nation, the cost of absorbing the destitute North could be economically crippling. Before the two halves of the peninsula are joined up, the South will want to see the establishment of a successful capitalist economy in the North. Can Kim accept an opening up of his backward nation to Western influences, including the internet – which would allow his repressed people to understand for the first time how appallingly they have been treated?

At present, the unrelenting hardship and constant conditions of near-starvation help keep Kim Jong-un’s populace under control. And while he will hope to see Western sanctions on his regime lifted, that doesn’t mean he plans or intends to make his people’s lives any easier.

The West should make an offer to lift sanctions in return for a cast-iron promise to stop his nuclear programme. (In fact, his reckless nuclear testing has made it unsafe for him to detonate another H-bomb at his northern underground test site because it could collapse.)

If Kim Jong-un agrees, then his regime will be allowed to survive – however arduous and horrific that may be for his people.

What the North Korean leader will want to do is welcome President Trump to his capital with a glorious cultural and military spectacle. The American leader will be received by cheering crowds, just as China’s Chairman Mao made sure Richard Nixon was treated like a megastar. We can trust Kim to do that much. The question is, can he be trusted to keep the peace?

Standard
Arts, History, Philosophy, Science

Philosophy: The four elements and atomism

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The dawn of scientific thought in Ancient Greece.

THE question of what the universe is made of was still a major concern of Greek philosophers in the fifth century BCE. A native of Akragas in Sicily named Empedocles thought that everything was composed of a single element (known as the Milesian line of thought). Later, however, he took this a step further, identifying four distinct elements – earth, water, air and fire – which in different proportions formed all the different substances in the universe. Developing his ideas from the monism of Parmenides, he argued that these elements must therefore be eternal and unalterable, but reasoned that change was possible if some sort of force altered the mixture of elements.

He suggested that two opposing forces, which he poetically called ‘Love’ and ‘Strife’, caused attraction or separation of the elements and brought about changes in the composition of substances. His classification of the substances later known as the four classical elements was widely accepted by philosophers and was a cornerstone of alchemy until the Renaissance (the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era and covering the span between the 14th and 17th centuries).

Democritus and Leucippus: atomism

A theory of matter proposed by Leucippus and his pupil Democritus was less influential at the time than the ‘four elements’ proposed by their contemporary Empedocles. In retrospect, it seems closer to modern scientific understanding. They suggested that everything in the universe is composed of minute, unalterable and indivisible particles, which they called atoms (from the Greek atomos, uncuttable). These, they argued, are free to move through empty space, combining in constantly changing configurations.

The assertion there is such a thing as a void, an empty space, may be one reason these ideas were originally considered unacceptable. According to their theory, the number of atoms is infinite, and different kinds of atoms with different characteristics determine the properties of the substance they form together. Because the atoms are indestructible, when a substance, or even a human body decays, its atoms are dispersed and reconstituted in another form.

Standard
Science

Questions of Science: Free the atoms

Oxygen has a slightly greater density than nitrogen. Why, then, don’t these main constituents of air separate out?

MD overlapGAS MOLECULES move rapidly at room temperature, with oxygen and nitrogen travelling at around 500 metres per second, so they obviously collide frequently. This allows the oxygen and nitrogen molecules to mingle and mix, rather like large numbers of people on a nightclub dance floor, in a process known as diffusion. Convection, the transfer of heat within the atmosphere, also plays an important role in this gas mixing process.

Gas mixing is a spontaneous process. This means that if you had a container with two compartments separated by a barrier, with one compartment containing pure nitrogen and the other pure oxygen, the two gases would automatically mix or diffuse as soon as the barrier was removed.

A change in the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen would be expected in a hypothetical quiescent atmosphere. However, constant mixing occurs in the real atmosphere, driven by the Earth’s rotation and by differences in density between hot air at the Earth’s surface and colder air higher up.

Up to altitudes of between 80 and 120 kilometres this mixing results in a uniform concentration of oxygen and nitrogen – which respectively make up approximately 21 per cent and 78 per cent of the atmosphere.

This region is known as the homosphere. Partial stratification of the two gases does occur above 120 kilometres, in the heterosphere, where the density of air is much lower than at the surface and the efficiency of bulk mixing processes is reduced.

RSC

The world’s leading chemistry community, advancing excellence in the chemical sciences. The society promotes, supports and celebrates chemistry.

If there were no circulation in the atmosphere, the oxygen would tend to concentrate in the lower strata. This process would take millions of years once circulation ceased because molecules of oxygen (and, indeed, nitrogen) are constantly colliding with other molecules. This means it would take a long time for a particular molecule to fall from its starting point to the ground. Once it hit the ground, it would bounce and eventually rise again to a great height, only to fall again. This would be repeated frequently if no other variable, such as temperature, changed.

Although the individual molecules continue to travel up and down, each ‘species’ of oxygen and nitrogen would eventually reach an equilibrium distribution of molecules per unit volume as a function of height. This species density will decrease with height by an amount that depends on the molecular weight of the species. So, the oxygen would fall off with height slightly faster than the nitrogen. At high altitudes, the air would become richer in nitrogen, but then other gases such as water vapour, neon, methane, helium and hydrogen would dominate.

In fact, atmospheric circulation and turbulence prevents this from happening in the lower atmosphere. But in the very high atmosphere there is not much circulation and the composition does become dominated by atomic oxygen. Above 600 kilometres this is superseded by helium, and eventually by atomic hydrogen.

science in motion

Science-in-motion: a series of short articles following topics in science.

. Molecular geometry

This describes the overall shape of a molecule in terms of how the atoms inside it are arranged. Examples of simple structures are linear molecules like carbon dioxide (O=C=O) and tetrahedral molecules like methane, which consists of a carbon atom with four hydrogen atoms surrounding it at the corners of a tetrahedron.

Trigonal-bipyramidal molecules are shaped like two pyramids back to back, while octahedral molecules have a shape like an eight-sided solid. Octahedral molecules include the compound sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

‘Isomers’ are compounds that have the same chemical formula but different molecular structures. For instance, the sugar fructose is an isomer of glucose – they have the same formula C6H12O6, but their atoms are arranged in different ways. Sometimes, two isomers are mirror images of each other, in which case the molecule is said to be ‘chiral’ and the two mirror-image forms are called enantiomers. Chiral molecules include most amino acids (which are the building blocks of proteins).

Molecular Geometry

Standard