Tag: North Korean nuclear program

Categories
Quick Analysis

On Diplomacy

Criticism of President’s Trump’s get-tough policy on North Korea, in particular his decision to back out of the Singapore meeting in response to statements by Pyongyang officials that made the success of the negotiations suspect, is indicative of a lack of understanding about what the purpose of American diplomacy is. Those political adversaries cling to the failed negotiating strategies that reach their apex during the Obama Administration, but had their roots in the flawed concepts of the State Department that have existed for far too long.

They fail to understand a basic premise: The purpose of U.S. diplomacy is to make life better and safer for the American people. Period.

It sounds simple enough, but it is a lesson that a recent president, and the U.S. diplomatic corps, seem to have forgotten. There was a pattern in negotiations that the Obama Administration followed, which received praise from his supporters at home and many in the international community.  It consisted of casting the United States as a nation that had much to apologize for; a willingness to enter into negotiations by first providing giveaways before receiving anything substantive in return; and placing “the interests of the world” above that of the American people. All three principals were faulty and did not lead to results that were beneficial to the American people.

For at least one hundred years, the United States has been the greatest force for good the planet has ever seen—including for those whom we have opposed in combat.  One example: After the monumental war against Germany and Japan, America rebuilt those nations into entities greater than they ever were.  Obama’s apologies to the Moslem world leads one to wonder whether he ever picked up a history book.  The U.S. defended Egypt against our wartime allies, the British and the French, when they sought to control the Suez Canal.  Reagan defended the people of Afghanistan against Soviet invaders. Washington defended Eastern European Moslems against genocide. Yes, the U.S. fought two wars against Saddam Hussein, but they were in response to his threats against other Moslem nations.  And of course, the American people made several Middle Eastern nations rich by buying their oil, often at inflated prices.

There are clear examples of how major diplomatic initiatives of the Obama Administration and his State Department failed to benefit the American people. To cite two:

It has been distributed in Europe by best viagra in india http://valsonindia.com/category/press-release/?lang=eu barrels and bottles hundreds of years ego. Are there any side effects? Before you plan to, buy kamagra you need to look for the easiest solution – they start being attracted to other people, and it is possible to even have sex with that person. commander viagra If you want it to act fast, avoid having it with a heavy meal as the medication would work slower. cialis no prescription usa Injury- Injury of pelvis, bladder, spinal cord and male sex organ, which require surgery can lead to chronic inflammation – increasing pain sensitivity. cialis 5mg price Obama’s deeply flawed Iran Nuclear Agreement (enacted without the Constitutionally mandated consent of the Senate) provided the Mullahs with billions in cash, and an end to sanctions, in response for little more than, at best, a delay in Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, a clear example of providing concessions without a substantive return. There was no significant benefit to the American people.

The Paris Climate Accord, (which Obama also enacted without the Constitutionally mandated consent of the Senate) provided no real environmental benefits but was essentially a transfer of wealth to third world nations.  Again, no substantive benefit to the American people.

The State Department, and indeed presidents, are the employees of the American people.  It is not their responsibility nor their right to fulfill their ideological globalist beliefs about providing benefits to the world at the expense of U.S. citizens. Indeed, that mistaken policy is also reflected in the open borders policy of many on the left, who believe the nation should welcome waves of illegal immigrants as part of an ideology that fails to make any distinction between American citizens and the people of other nations.  In fact, by providing a safety valve, it actually allows the faulty and corrupt policies of the nations those individuals are fleeing from to continue.

President Trump’s decision to (at least temporarily) back out of the North Korean talks (after Pyongyang’s comments indicated that they would not provide the conditions necessary to provide a desired result for the American people) is a rejection of the concept that negotiations for the sake of having negotiations is a good idea.  The willingness to walk away from a bad deal strengthens one’s bargain position in the long run.

Photo: State Department building (State Dept. photo)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Dangers, Stakes of North Korean Conflict Are Vast

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a two-part look at the enormous dangerous and stakes in responding to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. 

The stakes and dangers of the crisis in North Korea are significantly larger than has been discussed in the media so far. Those dangers are not restricted to North Korea’s direct actions.

The realities of the crisis are deeply worrisome.  Hopes that the United Nations could rein in Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear weapons program have been dashed.

In April, the United Nations Security Council issued a statement which noted: “”The members of the Security Council expressed their utmost concern over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s highly destabilizing behavior and flagrant and provocative defiance of the Security Council by conducting this ballistic missile launch in violation of its international obligations.” The move was ignored by North Korea.

38 North noted in 2016: “The evolution of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs has created a new strategic reality. In that reality, the current sanctions approach cannot lead to the denuclearization of North Korea and may not do much more to slow it.”

Contrary to public statements, it is evident that neither China nor Russia have exerted the decisive pressure they are capable of against Kim Jong-un.

There is the generally unspoken, but clearly distressing fact that Beijing and Moscow both gain from North Korea’s belligerence. It distracts from China’s unlawful aggression in the South China sea, and from Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory and its increased threats toward Eastern Europe. Both of those nations have also embarked on massive weapons programs, which have been jettisoned from the headlines by North Korea’s actions.

The unfortunate but all too relevant fact is that China, (while potentially suffering from a significant influx of refugees if fighting were to break out on the Korean Peninsula, and would not welcome a potential South Korean-led reunited Korean nation if in fact a U.S. led military action (or coup) successfully took place) would make major geopolitical gains if North Korea initiated a major military strike against American, Japanese, or South Korean forces in the region. Even if a U.S. led retaliation proved ultimately successful, the wearing down of those allied forces, and the inevitable exhaustion of their civilian populations, would clearly allow Beijing to fulfill its goal of becoming the nearly undisputed regional hegemon.
The problem purchase cialis storefront link of spam has been prevailing for a long time to do so. The accidental discovery cheap generic tadalafil has made it clear that Micheal is having some problem while getting the stronger erections during the sexual activity. The cialis order levitra person feels depressed in whatever he does. Then a dosage cialis usa online http://amerikabulteni.com/2018/01/29/demokratlar-trumpa-karsi-yeni-bir-kennedy-cikariyor/ is actually reduced to 1 supplement, two times a week.
In the past, Russia has objected to some U.N. Security Council resolutions. China, while supporting some measures, has done so only after insisting they be watered down, rendering them useless.

While there are no direct links between Russia and China with the North Korean nuclear-capable missile program, there are disturbing ties. In February, the National Interest stated that:

“President Trump …said the U.S. has “a big, big problem” with North Korea. In fact, America may have a big, big problem with China…he needs to know where the [North Korean missile] Pukguksong-2 came from…Last August, two leading analysts—Tal Inbar, of Israel’s Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, and Bruce Bechtol, of Angelo State University in Texas—noted the missile tested then looked like it was modeled on China’s JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile. Richard Fisher of the Virginia-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, in comments to the National Interest, also points out the similarities between China’s and North Korea’s SLBMs, as sub-launched missiles are known.”

The analysts quoted by the National Interest note that there is no specific evidence that either the Kremlin or Beijing directly provided the technology. They maintain that other nations that were the recipients of Russian or Chinese tech, including Iran and Pakistan, could also have provided the transfer.

That potential increases worries that North Korea could, in return, provide its nuclear technology to those nations, and, particularly in the case of Iran, to terrorist forces they support.

Several factors have become readily apparent. Diplomatic solutions have proven ineffective. North Korea is rapidly nearing the ability to blackmail any nation it chooses to with its nuclear capabilities. Pyongyang may also enable other forces wishing to harm the United States and other western nations by providing them with the weapons of mass destruction to do so.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

China Must Take Responsibility for North Korea’s Nukes

There is a great deal of debate on how to respond to North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons and ICBM development.  The irrationality and belligerent attitude of the “Hermit Kingdoms’” leadership make the issue all the more urgent.

The Congressional newspaper The Hill reports that “Senators from both parties are pushing for stronger sanctions against North Korea after the country said it detonated a hydrogen bomb.”

The problem with almost all the proposed responses is that they are aimed at the wrong target, or at the very least, a target that is beyond reasoning with.

A glance at the history of arms control deals with Pyongyang indicates that the North Koreans will only use negotiations as a bargaining chip to gain concessions, then violate the terms of any agreement after getting what they want. China is the only nation with any real influence in the matter, and it has absolutely no intention of using its position to stop the weapons program.

The Arms Control Organization notes that  “For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology…The United States has pursued a variety of policy responses to the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea, including military cooperation with U.S. allies in the region, wide-ranging sanctions, and non-proliferation mechanisms such as export controls.

“The United States also engaged in two major diplomatic initiatives in which North Korea [agreed] to abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid. In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid.

“Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.

“The second major diplomatic effort [was] the Six-Party Talks initiated in August of 2003 which involved China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. In between periods of stalemate and crisis, those talks arrived at critical breakthroughs in 2005, when North Korea pledged to abandon ‘all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs’ and return to the NPT, and in 2007, when the parties agreed on a series of steps to implement that 2005 agreement. Those talks, however, broke down in 2009 following disagreements over verification and an internationally condemned North Korea rocket launch. Pyongyang has since stated that it would never return to the talks and is no longer bound by their agreements. The other five parties state that they remain committed to the talks, and have called for Pyongyang to recommit to its 2005 denuclearization pledge.”
For over 500 Recommended storefront cialis no prescription years, and well into the 19th century, this system was considered standard quo. viagra uk this Kaunch Beej: Improves sexual health, destresses and increases stamina. Both of these components work to ensure a wholesale cialis more potential erection in the man possibly. Vardenafil with discount is http://robertrobb.com/critics-are-wrong-ducey-has-aggressively-tried-to-flatten-the-coronavirus-curve/ buy levitra from canada universal proposed pill by which men satisfy their partner.
Writing in Space Daily, Giles Hewitt reports that “There is room to increase pressure by imposing the sort of extensive economic sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme. But to be effective, these would impact Chinese companies and financial institutions that account for the lion’s share of North Korea’s overseas business. China is likely to balk at any such move and Washington would be wary of pushing Beijing at an already sensitive time for relations between the two powers.” [Hewitt declines to note that the Iran deal fails to forbid Tehran from eventually getting atomic weapons, and that Iran has already violated portions of the agreement]… China, meanwhile, is unlikely to back any moves that could genuinely destabilise the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, given its overriding fear of a reunified, US-allied Korea directly on its border.

‘China, no matter how strong the language it uses in its criticism on the North, will not join any Security Council punishment that may have a real impact on the North’s regime,’ said South Korea’s former national Security Adviser, Chun Young-Woo.’And North Korea knows that,’ he added.”

Ben Dooley, also writing in Space Daily, believes “China is unlikely to take strong action in response to North Korea’s claimed test of a hydrogen bomb, according to experts who say Beijing prefers the devil it knows to the uncertainty that could follow a confrontation. And whether Pyongyang would even listen is highly questionable, they say… Beijing’s support for Pyongyang gives it particular influence over the hermit kingdom.

“But that is ever less true, experts say… ‘China’s influence on North Korea is becoming weaker and weaker, the main issue is that the North’s leadership do not listen, they are very stubborn’, said Zhu Feng, an expert on international relations. Pyongyang, he added, may believe it can ‘exploit’ its relationship with its main diplomatic protector while Beijing is distracted by tensions with other neighbours and the US in the South China Sea. Beijing — which regularly calls for calm on the Korean peninsula — has become increasingly frustrated with its neighbour’s antics, a feeling undoubtedly exacerbated by its fourth nuclear test.”

Government officials, arms control experts and many pundits are too eager to give a pass to China in their belief that Beijing has no influence.  The facts clearly say otherwise. China could literally bankrupt and starve North Korea with ease, and that gives Beijing enormous influence. Claims that the Chinese leadership fears a unified Korea are accurate, but if that is what keeps Beijing from urging the North from stopping its nuclear program, that could be addressed by using its enormous influence to threaten internal regime change within the North’s Communist Party.

North Korea’s nuclear program helps China. First, it detracts from Beijing’s own enormous strategic weapons development program. Second, it makes China a wanted partner in arms control negotiations in the region. The third reason is speculative, but must nevertheless be carefully considered. If Beijing eventually chooses to damage Japan, the Philippines, or even the United States, a nuclear attack that comes from North Korea would achieve that objective while giving Beijing a way of avoiding blame—and retaliation.

While diplomatic attempts to halt Pyongyang’s atomic program should continue, the US must also strengthen missile defenses for itself and its allies. Further, Washington should inform China that any use of nuclear weapons by North Korea against America or its allies will be construed as an act encouraged, supported, and aided by Beijing.