Arts, China, Japan, North Korea, Society, South Korea, United Nations, United States

Are we inching towards nuclear war?

NORTH KOREA

NK2

Intro: North Korea’s continued use of missiles threatens a new global flashpoint which could suck in South Korea, China, Japan and the United States.

AT 8.30 in the morning, rush hour is in full swing in the South Korean capital of Seoul, home to some 25 million people.

Those commuters crammed into the underground system are the lucky ones – initially, at least. When the missile hits, they are protected from the blinding light of the 20-kiloton detonation.

But above ground, in the area centred on the Yeouido financial district, all is destruction. Buildings up to a mile from Ground Zero have been vaporised or reduced to rubble. Some 70,000 people are dead, killed by the heat and the blast wave. Many more will succumb to radiation burns and radioactive fall-out over coming days.

The nuclear nightmare that has long bedevilled South Korea – America’s key ally in the region and one of the world’s most dynamic economies – has become a reality.

North Korea, most rogue of rogue nations, has struck. The nuclear explosion, similar in size to that which levelled Hiroshima, signalled the start of a blitzkrieg-style ground invasion intended to swiftly overwhelm its richer, more advanced neighbour.

A second atomic warhead, inbound on a crude Rodong rocket, has been successfully intercepted by America’s THAAD (Thermal High-Altitude Area Defence) anti-ballistic missile system. But Seoul’s torment is only beginning as hundreds of North Korean heavy guns rain down shells on the capital, many containing Sarin nerve gas.

The city, bunched up against the North-South border, is hopelessly vulnerable to a mass sneak attack of the kind now taking place, as hundreds of thousands of North Korean troops, and thousands of tanks, pour out of innumerable underground bunkers built within miles of the Demilitarised Zone between the two countries.

The rest of the world watches as the horror is relayed via 24-hour rolling news and social media. And waits for the next move …

****

COULD such a scenario ever come to pass? Will Kim Jong-un, latest incarnation of the cult dynasty that has ruled the Communist northern half of Korea since 1948, exchange bluff for action and, one day, deploy his small but lethal nuclear arsenal?

That terrifying possibility moved a step nearer this month when, without warning, Kim Jong-un ordered a salvo of missiles to be fired towards his other nervous neighbour, Japan.

The latest in a series of escalating acts of provocation by the North Korean dictator this year saw three (non-nuclear) missiles land in Japanese waters. North Korea media, which released photographs of the launch ‘supervised’ by a delighted Kim Jong-un, said the missiles had been aimed at American bases in Japan.

International condemnation was swift and wide-ranging, with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, describing the launch as a ‘new level’ of threat. The U.S. appears to be losing patience.

In the last few days, the U.S. has ratchetted-up the pressure further with the deployment to Korean waters of the super-carrier USS Carl Vinson. The 100,000-ton Nimitz-class carrier, with 40-plus F-18 fighters on board, and a powerful escort of cruisers and destroyers, is the ultimate ‘big stick’ expression of American military power – and a provocation to paranoid minds in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.

Sources in South Korea are claiming the heightened military presence – which includes moving in ‘Grey Eagle’ attack drones – is part of a U.S. plan to ‘decapitate’ the North Korean leadership and by demolishing key military facilities.

Ostensibly, Vinson is there to take part in the annual U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises – codenamed ‘Foal Eagle’ and ‘Key Resolve’ – involving 300,000 South Korean personnel and 20,000 Americans.

This act of allied solidarity was met, as usual, with blood-curdling threats from Pyongyang. It warned of ‘merciless ultra-precision strikes from ground, air, sea and underwater’ in retaliation.

As the Vinson berthed in the South Korean port of Busan, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, on a tour of the region, warned that the ‘diplomatic and other efforts of the past 20 years to bring North Korea to a point of denuclearisation have failed’.

The United States, said Tillerson, had provided $1.35 billion in assistance to Pyongyang to encourage it to abandon its nuclear programme, but to no effect. A ‘new approach’ was required – but what that might be, he has refused to say.

President Donald Trump has stated that ‘every option was on the table’ when it comes to North Korean aggression. While the phrase was meant to reassure, many Japanese and South Koreans worry that the Americans are contemplating pre-emptive strikes on North Korean military sites – which would indeed place them in the crosshairs of retaliatory attacks.

In unusually graphic language, China, North Korea’s reluctant patron, has warned that the communist state and the U.S. are like ‘two-accelerating trains’ speeding towards a head-on crash. The rhetoric may not be misplaced.

If World War III is to break out anywhere, then it would probably be in this febrile region. North Korea is intent on developing nuclear-tipped missiles that can hit the United States. Large areas of Japan and all of South Korea are already in range. Its nuclear arsenal numbers some 20 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.

 

WHAT is not clear is if North Korea has the ability to marry these A-bombs to its missiles to create workable devices. But even the most cautious of analysts warns it is only a matter of time.

Kim Jong-un, irrational and unpredictable at the best of times, appears increasingly trigger-happy, revelling in his ability to make Western powers squirm. In February, North Korea launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile, superior to anything that had gone before.

Just days later came the brazen murder, by a hit squad using powerful VX nerve toxin of Kim Jong-un’s estranged half-brother, Kim Jong-nam. The manner of the killing, at Kuala Lumper airport in Malaysia, was intended to strike terror into the hearts of exiled opponents of the Kim regime. Interpol have now issued warrants for the arrest of four North Koreans in connection with the murder.

It is, however, the test-firing of four ballistic missiles towards Japan on March 5 (a fifth is thought to have failed) that most concerns the West.

The missiles themselves are not the most worrying feature. Unlike the one launched on February 12, these were not propelled by solid-fuel motors which allow for quick launches. Nor did they have intercontinental range.

Judging by the distance (600 miles) and height (160 miles) reached by the missiles, they were probably what experts call ‘extended-range’ Scuds, acquired in the Nineties after the fall of the Soviet Union.

What truly alarmed was the simultaneous, multiple-firing, which suggests advanced operational skill; the impact area of three of the missiles within 200 miles of Japan; and, the threats that followed.

North Korea’s UN ambassador claimed that the situation on the Korean Peninsula was ‘inching to the brink of a nuclear war’.

China’s intervention, calling on the U.S. and South Korea to halt military exercises in exchange for North Korea suspending tests seems, not surprisingly, to have fallen on deaf ears, as evidenced by the arrival of the USS Carl Vinson this week.

For the time being, the U.S. military response is defensive, bringing forward the long-planned installation of its anti-ballistic missile system, known as THAAD, on South Korean soil. The system, while not perfect, is designed to knock out Scud-type missiles.

China has called the installation of THAAD a provocative military escalation, a claim echoed too by Russia. Both nations fear that the system’s radar would allow the Americans to peer deep into their territory and monitor their missile tests.

China views every U.S. military development in its hemisphere as an attempt to thwart its ambitions for regional dominance. But America needs Chinese help in reigning in Pyongyang.

The best outcome for all in the region would be for China to use its leverage as North Korea’s biggest trading partner and main source of arms, food and energy to persuade Kim Jong-un to halt his nuclear ambitions.

China has, in fact, recently put pressure on its troublesome semi-ally, announcing last month that it was stopping imports of North Korean coal, a third of the poverty-stricken nation’s exports. However, Beijing has always been cautious about actions that could cause the collapse of the North Korean system, and with it a flood of refugees.

Before leaving office, Barack Obama warned Donald Trump that North Korea was the gravest security risk he would face as president. Every day that has passed since the inauguration confirms this assessment.

Perhaps the best hope for those living in the shadow of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions lies within Kim Jong-um himself. He loves the good things in life, yachts, cars, the best tobacco, even as his own people go hungry.

War with South Korea means instant war with the United States, and whatever mayhem North Korea can cause during its brief nuclear rampage, it cannot hope to prevail against the world’s only superpower.

In signing the order to attack South Korea, Kim would be signing his own death warrant. We must all hope Kim Jong-um is still sane enough to understand that.

Appendage:

USS Carl Vinson

The super-carrier, USS Carl Vinson, has been deployed to the Korean Peninsula following continued provocative actions by North Korea. Pyongyang’s insists that it is nearing the completion of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching America.

 

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Government contingencies needed if Brexit fails to deliver a trade deal

BRITAIN

Intro: We will all shortly find out precisely where we stand as Theresa May triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty

In an era of political turbulence, the weeks and months ahead promise to be momentous in recent British history. The passage of the Parliamentary Bill to begin the process of leaving the EU is now complete. The legislative reality of the bill will now make possible the decision that was taken by the British electorate almost nine months ago.

Some people argue that this process has taken far too long, but the political upheaval that followed the referendum and the protracted court case over parliamentary sovereign rights have delayed matters. In many ways, though, this should have been hugely advantageous for the Government. It has had time to prepare for what promises to be the most complex set of international negotiations since we sought entry into the Common Market and EEC in the early Seventies. Indeed, given the complexities, they will pale into insignificance by comparison with what lies ahead for the British prime minister and her team.

A report from the Commons foreign affairs committee urged the Government to devise a contingency plan in the event of Britain leaving the EU with no deal and said it would be a ‘dereliction of duty’ not to prepare for such an eventuality. This point is well borne out if we consider that reverting to basic World Trade Organisation rules will leave us facing trade barriers and increasing levels of tariffs on trade. The country clearly needs to know before we leave what a “no deal” will entail.

The biggest danger is that British pragmatism will clash with EU romanticism. While a deal allowing British goods and services the same access to the single market they enjoy now is in everyone’s interests, this won’t necessarily be the view held on the Continent, especially in Brussels.

There is a risk that this process, once handed over to the European Commission by the Council of Ministers, will become enmired in the very bureaucracy that led Britain to lose faith in the whole project. While some of Europe’s elected politicians might be inclined to recognise the good sense of a British position they will likely become too distracted by their own domestic politics to focus on ours.

Undoubtedly, The Commission will have huge influence over these talks, how they are handled and the direction in which they travel. Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier, the Commission principals in charge of the EU negotiations, will be anxious to deny the UK anything that might encourage others across the EU which they too might wish to emulate. The rise of populist movements across Europe, particularly in the wake of Brexit and Donald Trump’s election victory in America, will weigh heavily.

While most should wish for a mutually beneficially agreement, the Government must prepare fully for the possibility that there won’t be a trade deal. The time for further discussion is almost over – even if Scotland continues with its position of holding a second Scottish independence referendum.

We will all shortly find out precisely where we stand as Theresa May triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Society, Syria, United Nations, United States

The Syrian Civil War enters its seventh year

SYRIA

Syria1

An example of the devastating effects that the Syrian civil war has had. A number of NGOs have reported deteriorating physical and mental health in many children exposed to the futility of war.

Intro: The Syrian conflict, one of the bloodiest in 70-years, has claimed almost 500,000 lives with millions more displaced. The war is about to enter its seventh year with no likelihood of it coming to an end anytime soon. But as several NGO’s have reported, aspects of how children in the region have been affected raises great concern.

THE SYRIAN WAR, a power struggle between President Bashar al-Assad, Sunni rebel groups and other militant factions and splinter groups, gave rise to the extremist Islamic State group (IS), which routinely recruits children to fight and has claimed responsibility for numerous atrocities across the region.

The complex, multi-party, tinderbox conflict has claimed almost 500,000 lives, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and has displaced millions of people, creating a refugee crisis across Europe and the Middle East.

What started as a series of anti-Assad protests in 2011 has led to an all-out war that has spiralled out of control. The fragmented nature of the conflict and the rise of extremist forces, many of which are closely affiliated to Al-Qaeda, have led to an almost total breakdown of normal civilian life in the country.

While the progression of the conflict has stagnated in recent years into an ebb-and-flow territorial war, the last two months have seen Kurdish and Arab coalition forces – backed by the US-led coalition – besieging territory held by IS in eastern Syria.

Several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have used the six-year anniversary of the war to give updates on those affected by the conflict.

In a report titled “Hitting Rock Bottom”, UNICEF gave a grave analysis of the deteriorating situation for children.

“Children have paid the heaviest price in the conflict, and in 2016 their suffering hit rock bottom in a drastic escalation of violence,” it said.

“Nearly 6 million children now depend on humanitarian assistance, with almost half forced to flee their homes.”

The report claims that at least 652 children died last year, a 20 per cent increase in the number killed a year earlier. Troubling, UNICEF believes that over 850 children were recruited to fight for various groups in 2016, double the number estimated for 2015.

Another report by OXFAM has taken aim at the growing wave of anti-migrant sentiment around the world.

“Those who have fled Syria are seeing doors slammed in their faces as rich countries across the world enact policies hostile towards refugees,” an Oxfam report has said.

It has also heavily criticised Donald Trump’s blanket ban of migrants from Syria entering the United States, as well as the British government’s cancellation of the so-called Dubs Amendment to give asylum to unaccompanied Syrian child refugees.

Save the Children released a study regarding the mental wellbeing of children in the rapidly worsening conflict. The study claims that one in four children in Syria are at risk of severe mental health disorders.

The organisation interviewed 450 subjects and found signs that many had been traumatised by six years of war, and were “living in an almost constant state of fear” even after escaping from the war zone.

Parents claim their children are showing increasing signs of aggressive and disturbing behaviour, suffering from bedwetting and speech impediments, and in some cases attempting suicide.

At present, almost all major NGOs are claiming that verified instances of murder, maiming and kidnapping are on the increase in Syria.

Although bombing campaigns in eastern Syria may liberate the regions from the threat of Islamic State, an effective and safe resolution to the conflict looks a long way off.

Standard