Since the Korean Armistice Agreement of July 27, 1953 until recent times, North Korea has violated the armistice 221 times. Most of these incidents took place near the Demilitarized Zone on the North Line Limit.
If we consider also the “hot” period of 1977, when the First Free Economic Zone was established in Pyongyang, North Korea has violated the armistice at least 221 times, including 26 military attacks. South Korea did almost the same with its 200 operations against North Korea, mainly occurred between 1976 and 1980.
Furthermore the United States launched attacks independently and autonomously, starting from the Southern lines, with some coordinated actions together with the South Korean forces – at least twenty raids targeted against some non-military infrastructure of North Korea.
Nevertheless the Demilitarized Zone, created to freeze the hottest period of the Cold War, when General MacArthur planned the launch of an A-bomb on the People’s Republic of China, is the result of an archaic phase of the Cold War itself.
The phase in which Winston Churchill thought he “had butchered the wrong pig” in World War II and had in mind an “Unthinkable Plan” against the USSR, worn out by a massive war effort made together with the Western Allies, with a view to bringing the war inside Western and Central Russia.
Everything changed with the new logic of the Cold War starting from the famous “long telegram” by George Kennan from Moscow, written after Stalin’s “Bolshoi speech”, sent encrypted in February 1946 and then turned into the article by Mr. X published on Foreign Affairs in 1947, lucidly entitled The Sources of Soviet Conduct.
It must be clearly said that we need to wipe away the relics of the first and second Cold War in the Korean peninsula.
It is worth noting that Stalin’s “Bolshoi speech” made it clear that the Soviet Union had to start again exporting Communism and that the Russian rearmament plan should proceed quickly, because the USSR was “surrounded by enemy countries.”
It must be said clearly: today those who think to preserve the relics of the first “cold war” are insane analysts.
The instability which arose and spread in the Yellow Sea, as early as the first “crab wars” between the two Koreas in the late 1970s, is a currently unacceptable risk both for the primary actors in the region and for their global allies.
The destabilization of the Chinese North-Eastern border with North Korea is a currently unacceptable risk for China. Russia has no intention of letting go in a fundamental region such as the Korean one, which is the link between the Asian regional seas and the Western invariants of the Russian maritime strategy. Japan itself cannot but recreate its pre-war “co-prosperity area” with Korea, not necessarily only with South Korea, since the size of its economy does not enable it to have any other way out. The United States have every interest in closing the Korean dossier so as to avoid the ongoing Central Asia’s destabilization and make their Pacific areas “viable”.
On April 28, 2016, Xi Jinping made it clear that “no instability would be allowed in the Korean peninsula”, and the game wars of the US CSIS point to a situation in which the United States, China and the Russian Federation are symmetrically able to “put pressures” on their regional points of reference to avoid the escalation. Hence no 2.0 Cold War, but the need for a “new thinking” going well beyond the 1990s-style dual logic.
Therefore the issue lies in creating a group of relevant nations, in terms of history, influence, interest and presence in the region, dealing not only with military and civilian nuclear power – the mistake which still affect Iran’s global strategy after the JCPOA signing and the slow lifting of sanctions against it.
As is well-known, the “six party talks” were born in a situation of need, which did not provide great leeway.
North Korea’s walkout from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 was the core of the problem, as if the NPT were still a serious matter, not to mention the fact that, during the fifth round of negotiations, North Korea agreed to close down its civilian-military structures for nuclear power generation so as to reach an agreement on fissile fuel and the stabilization of relations with the United States and Japan.
Many of the international “free rider” actions by North Korea are obviously a way to attract attention and increase the US price and interest in a final negotiation with North Korea. North Korea has only its partial nuclear threat, which is inevitably tactical.
The sooner the “Cold War museum” between the two Koreas is closed, the better for everyone.
North Korea aims at minimal damage with maximum strategic effect. Obviously so, since it has no other channels.
South Korea is rightly afraid of North Korea’s “war communism” (it is a technical term), but it knows that its economy, its national identity and its own strategic set-up are indefinable if the previously mentioned “Cold War museum” is still open. As North Korea, South Korea suffers from these relics of the Cold War, but with different effects.
Japan does not want to break its strategic and security continuity from the Persian Gulf to the Western Pacific region, for obvious reasons of energy and stabilization of its commercial and, now, military expansion.
China does not want the internal instability or the use of a regional conflict along its land and maritime borders with North Korea to create a ripple effect in a region characterized by the complex social and political dynamics of “modernization”, which are essential for Chinese security.
The United States have every interest in removing an irritating thorn in the flesh of South East Asia which could – also for the United States – destabilize friends and allies, thus blocking the US military and strategic continuity from the Greater Middle East up to the Indian Ocean. Russia does not want a loyal ally, such as North Korea, to be called into question, since it is the axis of Russia’s “nuclear proxy” in South Asia – a “proxy” very similar to the one managed by Russia for the nuclear equipment and plants of Bashar el Assad’ Syria.
Great Britain could join these new “talks” on the basis of its prestige, its undeniable mediation skills and its ability to ensure the new geostrategic equilibria. We have seen it recently in Central Asia. China’s interest is too evident to be underlined again.
Which could be the initial points of agreement between Great Britain, the Russian Federation, China, Japan, the United States, South Korea and North Korea? This question can be easily answered if we consider the matter outside the “incapacitating myth” of the Cold War.
1) Official and international recognition of the current borders, possibly with slight and not relevant changes, or official recognition of North Korea, with all the consequences it implies. 2) Evaluation of a set of agreements and trade and financial aid for North Korea at the 2007 cost: end of fissile material production and stabilization, always with an international role, of North Korea’s Special Economic Zones. 3) Collective guarantee of South Korea’s borders and security, signed also by North Korea. 4) A progressive demilitarization of the Demilitarized Zone, with multilateral guarantees to be verified periodically. 5) A military guarantee of both Koreas, involving both the Russian Federation and China. 6) Great Britain could deal with the international security of Korean waters, with ad hoc arrangements. As Stanislaw Lem said, “we have to continually start again from the end”.
The Korean Peninsula needs more peace talks rather than game drills
Although military drill is legitimate and often conducts internationally, it is still required to be transparent and cautious. That means the participants involved should publicly announce the game not be directed against any third party, if not having the pre-talks before the drills. For example, the Chinese military participated in Russia’s the Center-2019 drills and a large-scale Vostok-2018 strategic exercise. But both sides announced their aims to fully test and improve the capabilities of the Chinese troops in joint operation and logistics with a view to improving the strategic coordination between the two militaries.
However, this is not the case of the United States and its ally South Korea on the Korean Peninsula although the latter often display its reluctance to follow the dictate of the U.S. military command. It is sure that hostile behavior or policy like regular military drills against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) would lead to serious consequences. At the Xiangshan Security Forum in Beijing of this October, a top officer of DPRK armed forces put it, although Pyongyang has worked to build lasting peace but that the situation has relapsed into a “dangerous, vicious cycle” of exacerbating tensions because of the regular military drills of the U.S. and ROK forces.
Since 2018 when the DPRK-U.S. joint statement was issued, there is no progress in improving bilateral relations between the two sides. Pyongyang has insisted that it is completely because of the U.S. anachronistic and hostile policies against the DPRK and also the ROK (South Korea) has adopted a “double-dealing attitude” in continuing to carry out military drills with the U.S. and buying advanced military equipment. Under such circumstances, Pyongyang has no other choices but conducted missile tests in recent months, including that of a submarine-launched ballistic missile, and broke off the latest working-level nuclear talks with the U.S. Understandably, DPRK’s top negotiator for the talks blamed the U.S. for the breakdown with accusing Washington of “bringing nothing” to the negotiating table. In addition, the DPRK officially accused the U.S. of using sanctions in order to enforce disobedient countries to their knees. Yet, sanctions draw only resistance and counteraction from those affected countries, without providing any help in solving the issues. Therefore, the DPRK must stand up to such attempts without giving in to any external pressure.
Consider this, people wondered why the United States and its allies have been so hostile and even often ridiculous in dealing with the DPRK which is one of the isolated and economically most poor states in the world. Actually China and Russia have supported the U.N.-endorsed sanctions against the DPRK, but they have opposed to any attempt on the part of the United States and its allies to change the ruling party and regime of Pyongyang regardless of the dire consequences. As the close neighbors of DPRK, China and Russia have vowed that they would never allow the chaos occurred in the Korean peninsula. Given this, Pyongyang has demonstrated its willingness to conduct negotiations with the United States and its brotherly counterpart the South Koreans. True, China and Russia have provided the necessary humanitarian aid to the DPRK but they also proposed two-suspension formula of the Korean issue, that is, the two sides simultaneously suspend their nuclear tests and military drills. Unfortunately, due to the United States’ arrogance and stubbornness, the situation on the Korean Peninsula has never been improved substantially.
Now the tension on the Korean Peninsula reappears again and even more dangerous move is that the DPRK’s supreme decision-making body lashed out at planned U.S.-ROK military drills with a stern warning the United States will face a greater threat and harsh suffering if it ignores Kim Jong-Un’s end-of-year deadline to salvage nuclear talks. Obviously the DPRK is deeply concerned with the annual U.S.-led military drills which are supposed to cause a “vicious cycle” in relations between the two sides. It is arguable that the United States with the most powerful arsenal in the world should have better behave itself with prudence at the sensitive time when the situation on the Korean Peninsula could return to the dangerous starting point due to the joint military drills. Here is no reasons to defend the DPRK’s menacing rhetoric but it does have the sound line to recognize the legitimate concerns with its own security.
This paper holds that despite the disappointment of those closely watching the tensions on the Korean Peninsula after the failed summits, yet diplomatically, the door between Pyongyang and Washington is still open. Although the United States and DPRK presented their own narratives on the disagreement, they didn’t finger point at each other as what they would have usually done. Actually, Trump has spoken of Kim favorably and Pyongyang’s tone on the impasse of the talks was soft. Everything indicates that both countries look forward to the next meeting though undecided. Past experiences tell that challenges are inevitable when the two sides discuss the issues that involve their core interests and grave concerns. Yet, it is obvious that both sides will benefit from sincere dialogue. As the success of diplomacy can’t be based on false promises and on breach of faith, it supposes that there is no reason to regard the chance of peace for the Korean issues failed. At the least, the two sides have no intention to reject the dual-tracks and two suspensions proposals by China. It has also reflected Beijing’s role on the Korean Peninsula issue is irreplaceable since Kim made four trips to China in just ten months and Trump praised Xi as a highly respected leader due to his help to mediate with Pyongyang.
If we look into the past summit talks between Trump and Kim, they faltered due to the American rejection of Pyongyang’s demands for broad sanctions relief in exchange for the partial dismissing of its nuclear capabilities. Following that, Kim responded with intensified testing activities but also indicated he would “wait with patience until the end of the year for the United States to come up with a courageous decision.” Curious enough, the United States indicates that it will consider changing plans to conduct joint military drills with South Korea if that helps support diplomatic efforts to restart a dialogue with Pyongyang. As U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, “We always have to remain flexible in terms of how we support our diplomats to ensure that we do not close any doors that may allow forward progress on the diplomatic front.” His remarks were greeted cautiously by Pyongyang although it still demands for a cancellation of the upcoming exercise. Yet, this was finally realized when the United States and South Korea decided on November 17 to postpone the planned military drills.
For sure, it is still too early to tell what would happen on the Korean Peninsula in terms of the deeply-rooted suspicions and the hostile groups on the both sides? But we should have confidence in the prospective meetings between the United States and the DPRK in the near future. In effect, Pyongyang and Washington have agreed that lifting sanctions is a key part of denuclearization that needs to be negotiated sincerely and constructively as well. At this crucial moment, it might be time for China to resume its role as expected. It seems that China is ready to extend its help as it has reiterated to both Washington and Seoul that Beijing is willing to continue to play a constructive role on the Korean Peninsula issue.
Briefly, it argues that the Korean Peninsula needs more peace talks rather than game drills. Equally a stable Korean Peninsula surely benefits the peaceful rise of China and the harmony of the Asian-Pacific region. This is the essence of diplomacy in light of its continuous negotiation, sincere persuasion and necessary compromise.
It’s when not if China’s Middle Eastern tightrope snaps
China is manoeuvring to avoid being sucked into the Middle East’s numerous disputes amid mounting debate in Beijing on whether the People’s Republic will be able to remain aloof yet ensure the safety and security of its mushrooming interests and sizeable Diaspora community.
China’s challenge is starkest in the Gulf. It was compounded when US President Donald J. Trump effectively put China on the spot by implicitly opening the door to China sharing the burden of guaranteeing the security of the free flow of energy from the region.
It’s a challenge that has sparked debate in Beijing amid fears that US efforts to isolate Iran internationally and cripple it economically could lead to the collapse of the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, accelerate Iran’s gradual breaching of the agreement in way that would significantly increase its ability to build a nuclear weapon, and potentially spark an unwanted military confrontation.
All of which are nightmare scenarios for China. However, Chinese efforts so far to reduce its exposure to risk are at best temporary band aid solutions. They do little to address the underlying dilemma: it is only a matter of time before China will have no choice but to engage politically and militarily at the risk of surrendering its ability to remain neutral in regional conflicts.
Israeli intelligence reportedly predicted last year that Iran’s gradual withdrawal from an agreement that Mr. Trump abandoned in May 2018 would ultimately take Iran to a point where it could create a nuclear military facility within a matter of months. That in turn could provoke a regional nuclear arms race and/or a pre-emptive military strike.
That is precisely the assessment that Iran hopes will persuade China alongside Russia and the European Union to put their money where their mouth is in countering US sanctions and make it worth Iran’s while to remain committed to the nuclear accord.
The problem is that controversy over the agreement is only one of multiple regional problems. Those problems require a far more comprehensive approach for which China is currently ill-equipped even if it is gradually abandoning its belief that economics alone offers solutions as well as its principle of no foreign military bases.
China’s effort to reduce its exposure to the Gulf’s energy supply risks by increasing imports from Russia and Central Asia doesn’t eliminate the risk. The Gulf will for the foreseeable future remain a major energy supplier to China, the region’s foremost trading partner and foreign investor.
Even so, China is expected to next month take its first delivery of Russian gas delivered through a new pipeline, part of a US$50 billion gas field development and pipeline construction project dubbed Power of Siberia.
Initially delivering approximately 500 million cubic feet of gas per day or about 1.6 percent of China’s total estimated gas requirement in 2019, the project is expected to account with an increased daily flow of 3.6 billion cubic feet for 9.5 percent of China’s supply needs by 2022.
The Russian pipeline kicks in as China drastically cuts back on its import of Iranian liquified petroleum gas (LPG) because of the US sanctions and is seeking to diversify its supply as a result of Chinese tariffs on US LPG imports imposed as part of the two countries’ trade war.
China is likely hoping that United Arab Emirates efforts to stimulate regional talks with Iran and signs that Saudi Arabia is softening its hard-line rejection of an unconditional negotiation with the Islamic republic will either help it significantly delay engagement or create an environment in which the risk of being sucked into the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is substantially reduced.
Following months of quietly reaching out to Iran, UAE minister of state for foreign affairs Anwar Gargash told a recent security dialogue in Abu Dhabi that there was “room for collective diplomacy to succeed.”
Mr. Gargash went on to say that “for such a process to work, it is essential that the international community is on the same page, especially the US and the EU, as well as the Arab Gulf states.” Pointedly, Mr. Gargash did not put Russia and China on par with Western powers in that process.
The UAE official said the UAE envisions a regional order undergirded by “strong regional multilateralism” that would provide security for all.
Mr. Gargash made his remarks against the backdrop of a Chinese-backed Russian proposal for a multilateral security arrangement in the Gulf that would incorporate the US defense umbrella as well as an Iranian proposal for a regional security pact that would exclude external players.
Presumably aware that Gulf states were unlikely to engage with Iran without involvement of external powers, Iran appeared to keep its options open by also endorsing the Russian proposal.
The various manoeuvres to reduce tension and break the stalemate in the Gulf put Mr. Trump’s little noticed assertion in June that energy buyers should protect their own ships rather than rely on US protection in a perspective that goes beyond the president’s repeated rant that US allies were taking advantage of the United States and failing to shoulder their share of the burden.
Potentially, Mr. Trump opened the door to an arrangement in which the United States would share with others the responsibility for ensuring the region’s free flow of energy even if he has given no indication of what that would mean in practice beyond demanding that the United States be paid for its services.
“China gets 91 percent of its oil from the Straight, Japan 62 percent, & many other countries likewise. So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation. All of these countries should be protecting their own ships…,” Mr. Trump tweeted.
China has not rejected Mr. Trump’s position out of hand. Beyond hinting that China could escort Chinese-flagged commercial vessels in the Gulf, Chinese officials have said that they would consider joining a US-backed maritime security framework in the region that would create a security umbrella for national navy vessels to accompany ships flying their flag.
Chinese participation would lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive regional security arrangement in the longer term.
China’s maritime strategy, involving the development of a blue water navy, suggests that China already de facto envisions a greater role at some point in the future.
Scholars Julia Gurol and Parisa Shahmohammadi noted in a recent study that China has already “decided to take security concerns in the (Indian Ocean) into its own hands, instead of relying on the USA and its allies, who have long served as the main security providers in this maritime region… If tensions continue to escalate in the Persian Gulf, Beijing may find it has no other choice but to provide a security presence in the Middle East.”
Implications of French President’s Visit to China on the International Arena
French President Emmanuel Macron pursues a policy of opening up to China and solving problems that may arise peacefully and diplomatically. France and Germany are the main pillars of the European Union, and the French opening to China is a European recognition of the importance of China’s role internationally.
Last Monday, the French president paid a three-day official visit to China amidst the US-China trade war. The French president has previously promised to visit China once a year throughout his term. These official exchanges between China and France strengthen China’s international standing, and prove the theory that China is a peaceful country seeking cooperation and opening up to the world.
Fifty-five years after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and France, a bilateral relationship based on respect and friendship despite some differences in regimes or strategic alliances. The Chinese model is mainly based on people-to-people communication and peaceful cooperation, and these are the main pillars of the Belt and Road Initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013.
Despite Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement in 2015, Beijing and Paris have kept their promises to contain global warming, a positive point in the bilateral relationship. The French president considered that China and France should lead the climate agreement. Cooperation between the two countries has emerged considerably in the industrial sector, such as the development of nuclear energy, aerospace, and the automotive industry. Academic cooperation between the two countries has also been boosted through student exchange programs and the high demand for Chinese language learning in France, which was previously rare.
Commenting on the importance of trade exchanges between China and the EU, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce showed that trade between China and the EU exceeded 322.5 billion US dollars in the first half of 2018, up 13 percent year on year. Chinese Ambassador to France Zhai Jun recently expressed that China and France are to expand cooperation in agriculture, energy, advanced manufacturing and artificial intelligence.
From the ancient city of Xi’an, the French president announced that an alliance between Beijing, Europe and Paris should be established for a better future for the world, and Macron stressed the need for a balanced relationship between China and Europe. The French president praised the Belt and Road Initiative and called for its activation in order to enhance the trade role of Asia and Europe.
France was the first Western country to recognize the People’s Republic of China. In a meeting with French ambassadors, the French president stressed that the West is in a moment of decline and China is progressing at a tremendous speed. During his visit to China, the French president took advantage of the trade war between the United States and China and worked to develop France-China trade relations, increase French trade partners to China, and promoting the French tourism, agriculture and services sectors.
France is seeking to strengthen Sino-European relations because of its great benefit to the European economy, but it is contrary to the Western orientation. China is also a beneficiary of good relations with France, because France has influence in Africa and many regions in the world and is a permanent member of the Security Council and it is a developed country at the military, technological and technical levels. China’s cooperation with a powerful country like France will bring many benefits and opportunities.
China’s great economic, technological and military progress indicates that China has become an important country in international relations, and it is in the interest of any country in the world to establish good relations with China. The best evidence is that France is seeking to establish good relations with China, as well as the European Union countries to make their relationship with China distinctive.
Middle Eastern protests: A tug of war over who has the longer breath
Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters...
Rwanda: EU provides €10.3 million for life-saving refugee support measures
During his visit to Rwanda, Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica has announced a €10.3 million support package...
The era emerged from “RuwanWeliSaya”: Aftermath of Presidential Election in Sri Lanka
Authors: Punsara Amarasinghe & Eshan Jayawardane Civilizational influence in shaping national political consciousness is an indispensable factor that one cannot...
Banking on nature: a Mexican city adapts to climate change
The Mexican city of Xalapa is surrounded by ecosystems that not only harbor stunning flora and fauna, but also provide...
Africa: Urgent action needed to mobilise domestic resources as tax revenues plateau
The average tax-to-GDP ratio for the 26 countries participating in the new edition of Revenue Statistics in Africa was unchanged at 17.2%...
U.S. President Trump to meet Bulgaria’s Prime Minister at the White House: What to expect?
Next Monday, 25 November, President Trump will welcome Bulgarian Prime Minister Borissov at the White House for a bilateral meeting....
Poll Shows Trump’s Israel Policy Is Opposed Even by Republicans
On Monday, November 18th, Reuters headlined “U.S. backs Israel on settlements, angering Palestinians and clouding peace process” and reported that,...
Africa3 days ago
China’s ties with Africa go beyond the “debt trap”
South Asia3 days ago
India’s Continuing Arrogance in Kashmir
Defense2 days ago
As Kashmir simmers the IOR too stands as a potential Nuclear Flashpoint
Energy News2 days ago
ADB, Gulf PD Sign Deal to Build 2,500 MW Power Plant in Thailand
Americas2 days ago
The Intellectual Doomsday Clock: 30 Seconds to Midnight?
Americas2 days ago
U.S.-Turkey relations: From close friendship to conflict of interests
Economy3 days ago
BRICS acts as a collective will to safeguard global multilateralism
Americas3 days ago
Trump’s blind spot