Category Archives: United Nations

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
Britain, Finance, Syria, United Nations, United States

Military intervention in Syria following the Douma attack was proportionate

SYRIA

IT has now been fifteen years since the Iraq War. That conflict has cast a long shadow over British foreign policy. The blowback against former prime minister Tony Blair and those who supported his decision to commit British forces to that conflict was unprecedented. It has created in the current generation of political leaders an extreme caution when it comes to matters of military intervention.

No one doubts that the deployment of an armed response must always be the last resort. But when the caution of politicians means a rejection to step in when it is both appropriate and necessary, we are on very shaky moral ground.

The decision by the British Government along with our international allies France and the United States of direct strikes against Syrian chemical production sites is a clear point in case. The use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 40 people in the town of Douma could not go unchallenged. The West has responded with proportionate force that leaves both Syria and its proxy Russia in no doubt as to what will happen if the ‘red lines’ of chemical weapons are breached or proliferated.

Unfortunately, though, a difficult tone was set by President Trump as he took to Twitter in a typically hot-headed intervention last Wednesday when he promised deployment of ‘smart bombs’ prior to the strikes on Syrian targets. War should not be trivialised using social media, more so even by the president of the United States.

French president Emmanuel Macron, who has previously said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would also represent a “red line”, declared that he had proof the regime of Bashar al-Assad was behind the attack on Douma. Mr Macron remained cautious in the run up to the attacks but should be applauded for the courage he took in committing French warplanes to the cause.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has persistently asked for a full intelligence briefing on the situation in Syria. He also wanted any decision on military intervention to be put to a parliamentary vote.

Naturally, many who favour Britain’s involvement in strikes against the Assad regime will be deeply sceptical about Mr Corbyn’s intentions. He was, after all, once chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, which condemns military action by western governments.

This lack of trust is at the heart of politicians’ inability to move on from the Iraq War when discussing possible deployment of British troops. A common characteristic of those who felt strongly either way about the 2003 intervention is the belief that those with whom they disagree are acting in bad faith.

It is clearly time for our national debate to get past Iraq and for politicians to honestly assess the merits of action based on humanitarian need rather than political risk.

. See also Britain must now act against Syria’s regime

Standard
Britain, Government, NATO, Russia, Society, United Nations

NATO stands united against reckless Russia

NATO

THE attack in Salisbury was the first offensive use of a nerve agent on NATO soil since the alliance was created in 1949. It involved one of the most toxic substances ever deployed. And the attack displayed total disrespect for human life.

As the fallout from the attack continues, many people have been rightly appalled that a chemical-nerve agent could be used in a small cathedral city. People there just go innocently about their daily lives.

All NATO allies stand in solidarity with Britain. The alliance has offered support as the investigation proceeds, and it has called on Russia to urgently address the UK’s questions. NATO also says that Russia should provide full disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Any use of chemical weapons is a threat to international peace and security – an unacceptable breach of international norms and rules, which has no place in a civilised world.

Sadly, though, the attack in Salisbury comes against the backdrop of a reckless pattern of Russian behaviour over many years.

The illegal annexation of Crimea. Support to separatists in eastern Ukraine. Unwelcome Russian troops in Moldova and Georgia. Meddling in the domestic affairs of countries such as Montenegro. Attempts to undermine our democratic elections and institutions. Cyber-attacks and disinformation. And Russia has also been investing in new weapons, some of which carry nuclear warheads. NATO has responded: our defences are now stronger than at any point since the Cold War.

NATO has tripled the size of its multinational response force to 40,000 troops – with a 5,000-strong spearhead force ready to deploy anywhere within 72 hours. It has also stepped up air patrols over the Baltic and Black seas.

The alliance has deployed four battalion groups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, with contributions from across the membership – a clear demonstration that the organisation stands together, all for one and one for all. Britain leads the battlegroup in Estonia; they’re protecting the whole of Europe.

When it comes to Russia, NATO’s response remains firm, defensive and proportionate. It won’t mirror Russia tank for tank, missile for missile, or soldier for soldier. It will continue to combine strong deterrence and defence with the search for meaningful political dialogue.

When tensions run high, and they invariably are, it’s important both sides talk to each other, to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. NATO does not want a new Cold War. And it certainly doesn’t want to be dragged into a new arms race. An arms race has no winners. It is expensive, risky, and in nobody’s interest.

Russia will continue to seek to divide us. But NATO allies stand united. Twenty-nine countries – representing half the world’s military and economic might.

Britain does not stand alone.

Standard