Category Archives: United States

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

A world dangerously close to the brink

NORTH KOREA

North-Korea-missile-663759

North Korea launched a ballistic missile in the Sea of Japan. This may have been from a submarine or from a new land based launch site.

THE world has looked on in horror this week as North Korea fired a missile over Japan. That has spread panic among the 6million population of Hokkaido island and is cranking-up tension to snapping-point.

Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world seemed as close to the brink of a genocidal nuclear exchange.

The difference is that in that terrifying stand-off of 1962, both John F Kennedy and Russia’s Nikita Khrushchev remained open to reason. For all their bluster, they saw full-scale war as unthinkable, and each was prepared to compromise.

But how confidently can the same be said of the arch protagonists in the Korean crisis?

We should all hope and believe that Donald Trump, though hugely unpredictable, is less reckless than he likes to appear. As leader of the world’s greatest democracy, he is also restrained by the US Constitution and independent-minded advisers.

But this is hardly true of the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. Surrounded by sycophants too terrified or brainwashed to rein him in, he seems as deranged as he is ruthless.

Indeed, his countless victims include his half-brother, poisoned at Kuala Lumpur airport, and an uncle he blew to shreds with heavy artillery at point-blank range. The fear is that anyone capable of such barbarity may be capable of anything.

But are threats of ‘exterminating’ his regime, and demonstrations of military might, the best way to deal with a madman who seems only to fear losing face?

Or will South Korea’s menaces and bombing exercises, and President Trump’s muscle-flexing, merely heighten Kim’s paranoia and sense of isolation, spurring him to ever wilder acts of lunacy?

One thing seems sure. If the North Korean dictator will listen to anyone, it will be to his neighbours the Chinese, who have everything to fear from war in Korea. The West should be using all its energy and efforts by encouraging Beijing to bring him to reason.

Certainly, Mr Trump should leave him in no doubt that the US will support South Korea to the hilt. But if he wants to be remembered as a statesman, he will tone down the language – and, like Kennedy, work tirelessly to broker peace behind the scenes.

Goading this tyrant with threats of ‘fire and fury’ is surely not the answer. Such language is adding fuel to a fire that could become dangerously out of control. It could even provoke the unthinkable: nuclear war.

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, NATO, United States

Return to Afghanistan? Britain may help Trump beat Taliban

AFGHANISTAN

afghanistan-2014-600

President Donald Trump has declared that thousands of US soldiers will be deployed again to Afghanistan in reducing the threat of terrorism to the West. He has called on his NATO allies to provide resources and funding.

BRITISH warplanes and drones could be sent back to Afghanistan after Donald Trump announced a major policy U-turn and declared he is expanding the US military there.

A new strategy to defeat the Taliban and Islamic State could also see British personnel being sent back to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan – in a significant expansion of the UK’s current training operation.

US Secretary of Defence, General Jim Mattis, called his UK counterpart, Sir Michael Fallon, to discuss the plans prior to the speech given by the President earlier this week vowing to ‘kill terrorists’.

Mr Trump said that he would beef up the US military presence and others must do the same, adding that a withdrawal would create a vacuum for jihadis. The most senior American commander for the Middle East said the first deployment of new US forces would arrive in Afghanistan ‘pretty quickly’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.’

It marks an abrupt turnaround from his election campaign, in which he regularly demanded an end to the 16-year conflict.

But since then, Taliban insurgents have recaptured swathes of the country, IS militants have waged terror, and US generals have publicly admitted the war is failing. The Taliban in Afghanistan responded by saying Mr Trump’s plans would make the country a ‘graveyard for the American empire’.

It is understood that during Sir Michael’s discussion with defence secretary General Mattis, the prospect of the UK sending ‘specific capabilities’ such as fighter jets and drones was raised. One option could be re-deploying air assets from Iraq where IS is on the back foot after being pounded by RAF warplanes.

Defence chiefs may also send RAF troops back to southern Afghanistan if they are asked to do so. They would be stationed in Kandahar, previously NATO’s regional HQ, and would form part of a plan to build an Afghan air force training academy.

A senior RAF officer said: ‘Kandahar will be one of the training locations. We are doing an awful lot of work in Kandahar right now to make sure the facilities are right … If the demand signal is to send people to Kandahar we will.’

A further 85 UK troops will be sent to the country in the coming weeks after requests by NATO. The Ministry of Defence commented by saying it is ruling out further increases.

The Defence Secretary welcomed President Trump’s pledge. Sir Michael said he had agreed with General Mattis that ‘we have to stay the course in Afghanistan to help build its fragile democracy and reduce the terrorist threat to the West. It’s in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer.’

Mr Trump made repeated calls ahead of his election for US troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, where they have been involved in military operations since 2001. But in an address at Fort Myer near Washington DC, he said he had decided to go against his ‘original instinct’.

US policy would now focus not on nation-building but on ‘killing terrorists’, he said, adding: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own – we are confident they will.’

General Joseph Votel, top US commander for the Middle East, estimated the first new deployments would arrive in a few weeks or even days.

COMMENT

AFTER the horror of 9/11, there were clear and persuasive arguments for sending British forces to Afghanistan to join our American allies in attacking Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.

But more than 15 years on – and three years after we withdrew our combat troops, leaving only some 500 behind to train the local military – shouldn’t we be thinking very carefully before answering Donald Trump’s call to rejoin the war?

During his election campaign, the President pledged to withdraw the 8,400 American soldiers who have remained in Afghanistan since combat operations officially ended in 2014.

But now, under pressure from his generals, he has changed his mind. And though he won’t specify numbers, he is widely expected to send some 4,000 extra troops – and says he expects his NATO allies to beef up their commitment too.

The President declared: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.’

These are laudable objectives. But at the height of its deployment in 2010-11, the US had 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan (with similar aims). If they failed to beat the terrorists and the Taliban, why should Mr Trump believe the smaller force he envisages will enjoy more success?

In the course of a conflict that has already lasted more than twice as long as the Second World War, 456 British personnel have been killed, with thousands more wounded – many on battlefields now back under Taliban control.

Indeed, though it will grieve many to say so, it is very far from clear how much their heroic sacrifice achieved. Is there any reason to believe putting more troops in danger will accomplish anything beyond making more families torn by the futility of returning to fight in Afghanistan?

Standard
Asia, Government, North Korea, United Nations, United States

Pentagon warns North Korea, ‘You will be destroyed’

NORTH KOREA

DONALD TRUMP’S military chief has warned North Korea that action against the United States would ‘lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people’.

Pentagon head Jim Mattis said that Kim Jong-Un would lose any arms race or conflict it started after Pyongyang threatened to strike the American territory of Guam.

Earlier, the US President had declared that his nuclear arsenal was ‘far stronger and more powerful than ever’.

Mr Mattis said that, while Washington was pursuing a diplomatic solution, the military power of the US and its allies was the most robust on Earth. Mr Trump had sent a shudder through Asia this week, threatening to unleash ‘fire and fury like the world has never seen’ against Kim Kong-Un’s regime.

Mr Trump’s comments came after US intelligence concluded that the Korean dictator had developed a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside a ballistic missile – years sooner than expected.

Supersonic bombers from the American air force then carried out a ten-hour mission over the Korean peninsula, prompting Pyongyang to brand the US ‘nuclear war maniacs’.

The Korean People’s Army said it was ‘carefully examining’ a plan to strike the island of Guam in the Western Pacific – where US bombers are stationed.

Amid fears of nuclear war, Mr Trump continued to boost of his country’s military power on Twitter.

He posted: ‘My first order as president was to renovate and modernise our nuclear arsenal.

‘It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before. Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!’

However, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sought to ease tensions and said there was no imminent threat from North Korea.

Mr Trump’s chief diplomat suggested that the president’s sabre-rattling had been deliberately robust – because it was the only language that Kim would understand.

He said: ‘I think Americans should sleep well at night, have no particular concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days.’

Mr Tillerson’s comments came as his plane refuelled in Guam, which is 2,131 miles from North Korea, on the way to the US after a trip to Asia.

He added: ‘Nothing I have seen and nothing I know of would indicate that the situation has dramatically changed in the last 24 hours.

‘What the President is doing is sending a strong message to North Korea in language that Kim Kong-Un would understand, because he doesn’t seem to understand diplomatic language.’

Tensions over the North Korean peninsula heightened as Pyongyang tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It was understood they were capable of hitting Alaska, but not the US mainland.

But earlier in the week it was reported that intelligence agencies were convinced North Korea has produced a miniaturised nuclear warhead that could fit on one of its ballistic missiles.

The Defence Intelligence Agency’s assessment suggested Kim’s quest to turn North Korea into a fully-fledged nuclear power had been accelerated by several years.

Officials also increased estimates of the number of nuclear bombs in Kim’s arsenal to 60.

And they revised expectations of how soon the regime could mount a nuclear strike on the American mainland.

Critics countered that they did not believe North Korea has yet mastered the technology required to prevent its long-range missiles burning up in the atmosphere during re-entry from space.

Asia experts claim Mr Trump’s combative language is playing into the hands of Kim by allowing him to convince his people that he is protecting them from a real US threat to their existence.

Although analysts tend to believe North Korea’s ruler does not want war, they have warned he is willing to push tensions with the US as far as possible.

Mr Tillerson said he hoped international pressure – including from Russia and China – could persuade North Korea to reconsider and begin talks.

Britain’s Foreign Office said it would work to ‘maintain pressure on North Korea’.

COMMENT

FOR the second time this year, the escalating tensions in the Korean peninsula are a cause for serious concern.

Over Easter, random missile tests by Pyongyang and US sabre rattling alerted the world to how potentially dangerous the situation in this volatile region could be.

When the stand-off ended, there was at least some hope that North Korea would end its provocative weapons tests.

But instead, the country’s unhinged dictator Kim Jong-Un has doubled down, pressing ahead with the development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles which he now claims can hit the US mainland.

According to reports sourced to US intelligence, North Korean scientists have overcome a critical technological hurdle in the production of a miniaturised nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles.

If true, this rogue state is close to having the power to inflict unimaginable death and destruction, and now presents the gravest of threats to the region and the West.

Whatever individual feelings are of President Trump, most people should accept that under such circumstances no president of the world’s most powerful democracy could stand by and do nothing. Mr Trump’s stance is in stark contrast to the softly-softly approach of the Obama administration, which arguably allowed the situation to dangerously escalate.

Yes, Trump is guilty of using inflammatory rhetoric when he says threats against the US will be met with ‘fire and fury like the world has never seen’. But the message is at least unequivocal, and expressed in language the North Korean regime cannot fail to understand as it threatens a missile strike against the US territory of Guam in the South Pacific.

The problem with such rhetoric, however, is that if the President fails to deliver on his threat, he will seem weak.

What is needed now is not more bellicose language but calm thinking by diplomats and Mr Trump’s senior generals, some of whom have impressive pedigrees. What is also vital is that the Chinese, who could have imposed reform on North Korea – effectively their client state – years ago, now behave responsibly and sensibly.

To their credit, they and Russia have supported the new UN sanctions against Pyongyang. Those sanctions must now be given the chance to work.

Kim’s Target:

guam-map

Protecting the island is the US military’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, used to shoot down ballistic missiles.

. Andersen Air Force Base, located in the south-west of the island, hosts B-52 bombers, as well as B-1B Lancer bombers and B-2 Stealth bombers.

. Guam is a 210-square mile volcanic island in the Western Pacific.

. It has a population of just 160,000 with some 6,000 US troops stationed there.

. 4 nuclear submarines. A Naval Base is located in the north-east of the island.

 

Standard