Connect with us

East Asia

The current North Korean issue

Published

on

Pending the periodical transformation of the North American political system, the Korean issue is surfacing again. It is a complex issue which is crucial to the strategic balance in Southern Asia. Moreover, it is precisely in the Korean region that the US (and also the European) balances with China and the Russian Federation are determined.

Since February 2016, Russia has always had excellent relations with the North Korean regime, but exactly in that phase the United States called for sanctions against North Korea within the UN Security Council. These sanctions have been primarily designed to damage the economic and strategic interests Russia has in the region.

Russia voted in favor of the sanctions, but I do not believe it can go beyond that level of warning against North Korea.

Russia is no longer willing to accept the nuclear and military autonomy of North Korea, which is now seen as a free rider in the Asian context.

The Russian Federation, however, wants to preserve the North Korean regime, which prevents the important Korean peninsula from falling under the US influence. Certainly it does not want military pressure against North Korea, which could endanger its security structures in Central Asia and the Pacific region.

Nevertheless Russia will certainly continue to preserve the high volume of trade with North Korea, amounting to one billion dollars a year – trade which is also based on the ruble.

It is also likely for the UN Security Council to block the project of an “Asian trading house” between Russia and North Korea, open to the other Asian countries and viewed by Russia as an axis for its penetration into Southern Asia.

China is no longer interested in keeping a North Korean system which puts pressures only on South Korea and the United States, but it plans to keep on using North Korea as the Southern pivot of its Belt and Road Initiative southwards and westwards.

This is the reason why China needs to “punish” Kim Jong-un (President Xi Jinping has not yet paid a visit to Pyongyang), but also to use him so as to avoid the Americanization of the terrestrial-maritime hub of the Yalu River and the Yellow Sea, which is essential for China’s military autonomy.

In this context, North Korea conveys two different sets of messages to Western countries and South Korea: the will of a slow but peaceful reunification and the rejection of the dismantling of its regime according to the techniques of the “orange revolutions” or the internal coup and even conventional war.

Finally, the North Korean regime shows its intention not to give up its nuclear-missile arsenal, which could also be managed by an agreement to be defined and reached from scratch.

The signs exist in the North Korean narrative and they only need to be interpreted with strategic wisdom, without regarding the North Korean regime as “irrational” or “unreasonable” or, even worse, run by an unpredictable leader.

Kim Jong-un is not an irrational man. He has a clear and reasonable plan in mind, but he wants to discuss it with reliable partners that do not wish, first and foremost, the destruction of his regime and his country.

Basically North Korea wants the United States to sit around a peace negotiating table which can definitely acknowledge its regime and define close and stable cooperation with South Korea.

The North Korean reaction to the South Korean block of the “reunification package” in Parliament and of the June 15 joint event of the whole Korean Nation, must be interpreted in this sense.

The celebration to be held in Kaesong, North Korea, did not take place due to the unilateral choice made by South Korea’s government.

Hence South Korea wants to play its own autonomous and independent role in the Asian region and fully exploit its new excellent relations with China and the Russian Federation, as well as probably wait for an implosion of the North Korean regime so as to do what West Germany did with East Germany, by incorporating it into its industrial system, almost at zero cost, while also avoiding competition thanks to the parity between the West German mark and the East German mark.

The South Korean President, Park Geun-hye, has gladly accepted the sanctions imposed by the United States on North Korea last February and has particularly emphasized that the economic crisis will tend to make North Korea implode if it does not give up its nuclear program.

Nevertheless it is precisely this military-civilian nuclear system which will enable North Korea to negotiate – maybe directly with the United States – a slow but stable softening of the regime and its return into the mainstream of the world-market.

I do not believe that Russia and China intend to support the US design of a controlled collapse of North Korea, which would destabilize the Chinese province of Liaoning and the whole Yalu River delta, as well as the 78 islands on the river controlled by China.

Russia has no interest in the collapse of the North Korean regime, but it does not even intend to support the US and South Korean pressures to definitively intimidate North Korea.

China has accepted the UN Security Council Resolution 2270 sanctioning Pyongyang. It has also set aside, for posterity, Kim Jong-un’s execution of his uncle Jang Song-Thaek, the privileged channel for relations with China. Finally it does not wish to witness an increase of North Korea’s nuclear technological potential – a system which could even threaten China in the future.

Nevertheless it does not want to run out of cards to be played in the debate on the future of the Korean peninsula, where the United States already have South Korea and China could remain without a point of reference in the region.

Currently winds of war are also blowing on the Korean peninsula.

On June 17 last, North Korea reported the preparation of a long-range military exercise in the US Andersen base in Guam, consisting of a formation of B-52H strategic bombers equipped with nuclear weapons.

Currently the presence of American forces in South Korea amounts to 28,500 soldiers and officers, while the South Korean Armed Forces have a staff of 3,600,000 units with 700,000 active soldiers.

According to the latest data available, North Korea’s armed mass is approximately 1.2 million units.

All analysts agree that a conventional war between South and North Korea would end quickly and easily with the North Korean defeat, since North Korea has almost no air force and has less advanced and refined weapon systems than South Korea’s, possibly supported directly by US forces.

However, it is precisely for this reason that North Korea has developed its nuclear system, so as to make the final attack on its regime difficult or impossible.

Furthermore, on June 13 last, the US nuclear submarine “Mississippi” was spotted in the South Korean port of Pusan.

Also this presence has been interpreted – and not fully unreasonably – as the direct threat of an act of war against North Korea.

The reactions of North Korean nuclear counterattack on the US system are related to the missile control over the Andersen base in Guam and over the other North American bases in the Pacific and to a series of precise counteractions: particularly the use of the KN-08 missile, which can reach the US territory, all the bases of the South Korean Armed Forces, the US bases in the Pacific and the Japanese territory.

Basically North Korea does not want the negotiations to be based on the threat of a conventional war or a US nuclear counterattack to a limited action of North Korea against South Korea.

In this case there is no “proportionality of force” or “reaction,” while the North Korean strategic objective is to be integrated permanently and stably into the market-world without losing its own political autonomy.

Is it possible? I think so. Kim Yong-un’s aim is to bring the United States around the final negotiating table.

Hence the United States could seek support from Russia – which does not want the collapse of North Korea, but its strategic downsizing – and from China, which has no interest in a hypernuclearized North Korea (but the North Korean bombs are often “made in China”) nor in a region experiencing a free-fall economic collapse along its borders.

Hence a new strategic equation is possible, not waiting for the crisis in North Korea as a good opportunity to seize, but managing the soft landing of North Korea in the new system of Asian equilibria.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

High time for India to Reconsider the One-China Policy

Published

on

Sino-Indian bilateral relations have seen major challenges in the recent years, beginning with the Doklam crisis to the current pandemic situation. The sugar-coated rhetoric of Beijing proved to be mere duplicity after tensions erupted along the Line of Actual Control where soldiers of both the states clashed in mid-2020, resulting in the martyrdom of several Indian jawans including a commanding officer. The other side also saw several casualties, though Beijing has kept the actual count under wraps. More recently, China suspended the state-run Sichuan Airlines cargo planes carrying medical supplies to India for 15 days citing the deteriorating situation in India due to COVID-19. This was after the Chinese government promised all the necessary help for India to battle the pandemic. 

The People’s Republic of China under the leadership of Xi Jinping has been maintaining an aggressive posture with India even while making calls for ‘maintaining peace’. Its support for all-weather friend Pakistan has attained new peaks when it proclaimed the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor under the Belt and Road Initiative passing through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, a territory claimed by India, despite New Delhi’s staunch opposition. It is in the light of all these events that the calls of the strategic community in India to review the recognition of One China policy has gained some attention. 

India’s Sensitivity versus China’s Duplicity  

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the Communist Party of China (CPC) claims itself as the only representative of the Chinese nation including the territories of Tibet and Taiwan among others. Any country having formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, also known as Republic of China shall be seen by China as challenging its sovereignty. The same parameter applies to any country recognizing Tibet or similar ‘autonomous regions’ under the Chinese control. This is known as the ‘One China Principle’ or ‘One China Policy’. India was one of the first countries to recognize the PRC in 1949 after the civil war as well as to accord recognition to its occupation of Tibet. However, China claims the whole of India’s Arunachal Pradesh as ‘South Tibet’, a claim that India has always rebuffed. Moreover, it occupies Aksai Chin which it captured during the 1962 war as well as the Shaksgam valley, ceded illegally to it by Pakistan in 1963.

Even after the war and the re-establishment of cordial bilateral relations, China has continued to repeat its illegitimate claims and nibble into India’s territory.  India’s protests fell on deaf ears and this is despite India recognizing the One China Policy. India stopped mentioning the policy since 2010 in its public announcements and publications, however, without repealing it. Taking undue advantage of this China pays little concern to Indian sentiments. This view in India, to challenge China’s One China Policy, has been strengthened by aggressive diplomatic postures of China as well as its regular incursions along the disputed border while continuing to support Islamabad on all fronts – overtly and covertly, encircling India. 

The government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to give in to the bullying attempts by China by allowing the Army to go ahead with offensive countermeasures against Chinese incursions in 2017 as well as in 2020, in addition to taking measures including banning dozens of Chinese mobile applications. It has also started actively taking part in initiatives like Quadrilateral Dialogue as well as strengthening relations with ASEAN states. However, a dominant section within the strategic community in India feel that these measures are not enough to knock China into its senses. 

Challenging the One China Policy 

The most significant among the measures suggested in this regard has been to review India’s adherence to the One China policy. In an atmosphere where China does not recognize the One India policy comprising of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territories, experts argue the need of reciprocity. Initiatives such as providing greater global visibility and access for Tibetans including the 14th Dalai Lama, using Buddhist history and traditions as a trump card since New Delhi has the advantage of having the Dalai Lama on its side, provides legitimacy for India unlike China. India can facilitate the appointment of the next Dalai Lama and extend protection for the existing and the next Dalai Lama. The repeal of the recognition for Chinese occupation of Tibet can also send major tremors in Beijing but that seems to be a distant dream. The new democratic Tibetan government under President Penpa Tsering should be given greater official acknowledgment and publicity. India has already taken small steps in this regard by acknowledging the involvement of the elite Special Frontier Force (SFF), majorly comprising of exiled Tibetans, in a game changing operation to shift the balance against China during the recent border crisis. The funeral of an SFF commando attended by a Member of Parliament and leader from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Ram Madhav was an overt signaling to China that Indians are not refraining from openly recognizing Tibetan contributions to the state of India. Another sensitive issue for China is the Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslims being allegedly tortured and deprived of their basic human rights in the ‘re-education camps’ by the CPC and a state sponsored genocide being carried out against them. India can take up the issue vigorously at international forums with like-minded countries, increasing the pressure on China. Similarly, the pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong, pro-Mongol movements such as the protest against Mandarin imposition in the school curriculum of Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, can also be encouraged or given moral support. India, a country which upholds its virtue of unity in diversity must take a strong stand against the ‘cultural assimilation’ or ‘liberation’ as the Chinese say. This is nothing but cultural destruction imposed by China using the rhetoric of ‘not being civilised’ and branding the non-Han population as barbaric in China and the regions it illegally occupies.

India can also stir the hornet’s nest by engaging more formally with the Taiwanese leadership. Taipei has always been approached by New Delhi keeping in mind the sensitivities of China in mind. However, it does not have to do so for a power that bullies both the nations with constant threats and provocations by its action. It is a well-known fact that Taiwan is a center of excellence in terms of the semi-conductor industry and high-end technology. Engaging more with Taiwan will not only hurt Beijing, but also will help India counter the strategic advantage possessed by China in terms of being the major exporters of electronic goods and telecommunication hardware to India. India can also attain more self-sufficiency by boosting its own electronics industry using the Taiwanese semiconductor bases. India can use this leverage to shed its overdependence on China in critical sectors, balance the trade deficit to some extent, while also securing its networks from Chinese intelligence. India must also focus on working with the states having stake in the South China Sea such as Philippines and Malaysia who regularly face aggression in their airspace and Exclusive Economic Zones from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces and China’s maritime militia, questioning their territorial sovereignty, imposing the One China Policy. New Delhi must pressurize China by working with the western nations, whose legislators have openly declared support for the Tibetan President in exile, to question China’s occupation of Tibet and attempts at homogenizing the population. Long term measures and strategies will have to be sought to end the dependence on China while seeking alternatives and becoming self-reliant over time. 

However, India will face several serious challenges to implement the above-mentioned measures. There is a deep lack of mutual trust among major powers like USA, UK, France and Russia through whom India can build a coalition. The American President Joe Biden is seemingly interested in partly co-operating with China and has a softer stance unlike the former President Trump. Nevertheless, the QUAD is a welcome step in this regard and India must undertake a greater role in pressurizing China through such forums, albeit not openly. India also has a serious issue of possibly having to incur heavy economic losses on having to limit Chinese goods and investments and finding similarly cheap and easy alternatives. These fault lines are exactly what is being exploited by China to its advantage. Thus, the Indian state and its diplomacy has the heavy task of working between all these hurdles and taking China to task. However, since China seems remotely interested in settling the border disputes like it did with its post-Soviet neighbours in the previous decades and instead gauge pressure against India. So, New Delhi will have to pull up its sleeves to pay back China in the same coin.  

The views expressed are solely of the author.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Who would bell the China cat?

Published

on

If the G-7 and NATO china-bashing statements are any guide, the world is in for another long interregnum of the Cold War (since demise of the Soviet Union). The G-7 leaders called upon China to “respect human rights in its Xinjiang region” and “allow Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy” and “refrain from any unilateral action that could destabilize the East and South China Seas”, besides maintaining “peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits”.

China’s tit-for-tat response

The Chinese mission to the European Union called upon the NATO not to exaggerate the “China threat theory”

Bitter truths

Amid the pandemic, still raging, the world is weary of resuscitating Cold War era entente. Even the G-7 members, Canada and the UK appear to be lukewarm in supporting the US wish to plunge the world into another Cold War. Even the American mothers themselves are in no mood to welcome more coffins in future wars. Importance of the G-7 has been whittled down by G-20. 

Presumptions about the China’s cataclysmic rise are unfounded. Still, China is nowhere the US gross National Product. China’s military budget is still the second largest after the US. It is still less than a third of Washington’s budget to be increased by 6.8 per cent in 2021.

India’s role

India claims to be a natural ally of the G-7 in terms of democratic “values”. But the US based Freedom House has rated India “partly free because of its dismal record in persecution of minorities. Weakened by electoral setbacks in West Bengal, the Modi government has given a free hand to religious extremists. For instance, two bigots, Suraj Pal Amu and Narsinghanand Saraswati have been making blasphemous statements against Islam at press conferences and public gatherings.

India’s main problem

Modi government’s mismanagement resulted in shortage of vaccine and retroviral drugs. The healthcare system collapsed under the mounting burden of fatalities.  

Media and research institutions are skeptical of the accuracy of the death toll reported by Indian government.

The New York Times dated June 13, 2021 reported (Tracking Corona virus in India: Latest Map and case Count) “The official COVID-19 figures in India grossly under-estimate the true scale of the pandemic in the country”. The Frontline dated June 4, 2021 reported “What is clear in all these desperate attempts is the reality that the official numbers have utterly lost their credibility in the face of the biggest human disaster in independent India (V. Sridhar, India’s gigantic death toll due to COVID-19 is  thrice  the official numbers”, The frontline, June 4, 2021). It adds “More than 6.5 lakh Indians, not the 2.25 lakh reported officially are estimated to have died so far and at best a million more are expected to die by September 2021. The Seattle-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that actual Indian casualties may be 0.654 million (6.54 lakh), not the official count of 0.221 million (2.21 lakh as on May 6 when the report was released. That is a whopping three times the official numbers, an indicator of the extent of under-reporting”.

Epidemiologist Dr. Feigl-ding told India Today TV on April, 16, 2021 that “actual number of COVID-19 cases in India can be five or six times higher than the tally right now” (“Actual COVID-19 cases in India may be 5 to 10 times higher, says epidemiologist. India Today TV April 16, 2021).

Concluding remarks

India’s animosity against China is actuated by expediency. There is no chance of a full-blown war between China and India as the two countries have agreed not to use firepower in border skirmishes, if any. Modi himself told the All-party conference that not an inch of Indian territory has been ceded to China. In May this year, the Army Chief General M M. Naravane noted in an interview: “There has been no transgression of any kind and the process of talks is continuing.”

It is not China but the Quad that is disturbing unrest in China’s waters.

History tells the USA can sacrifice interests of its allies at the altar of self interest. India sank billions of dollars in developing the Chabahar Port. But, India had to abandon it as the US has imposed sanctions on Iran.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Xinjiang? A Minority Haven Or Hell

Published

on

While the G7 meets under the shadow of Covid 19 and the leaders of the most prosperous nations on earth are focused on rebuilding their economies, a bloodless pogrom is being inflicted on a group of people on the other side of the world.

In this new era, killing people is wasteful and could bring the economic wrath of the rest of the world.  No, it is better to brainwash them, to re-educate them, to destroy their culture, to force them to mold themselves into the alien beings who have invaded their land in the name of progress, and who take the best new jobs that sprout with economic development.  Any protest at these injustices are treated severely.

Amnesty International has published a new 160-page report this week on Xinjiang detailing the horrors being perpetrated on Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.  Amnesty has simultaneously announced a campaign on their behalf.

Persecution, mass imprisonment in what can best be described as concentration camps, intensive interrogation and torture are actions that come under the definition of ‘crimes against humanity’.  More than 50 people who spent time in these camps contributed first-hand accounts that form the substance of the report.  It is not easy reading for these people have themselves suffered maltreatment even torture in many instances.

The UN has claimed that 1.5 million Muslims (Uighurs, Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks) are in these internment camps and China’s claims of re-education camps made to sound as benign as college campuses are patently false.

People report being interviewed in police stations and then transferred to the camps.  Their interrogation was frequently conducted on ‘tiger chairs’:   The interviewee is strapped to a metal chair with leg irons and hands cuffed in such a manner that the seating position soon becomes exceedingly painful.  Some victims were hooded; some left that way for 24 hours or more, and thus were forced to relieve themselves, even defecate, where they sat.  Beatings and sleep deprivation were also common.

Activities were closely monitored and they were mostly forbidden to speak to other internees including cell mates.  Trivial errors such as responding to guards or other officials in their native language instead of Mandarin Chinese resulted in punishment.

Amnesty’s sources reported the routine was relentless.  Wake up at 5am.  Make bed — it had to be perfect.  A flag-raising and oath-taking ceremony before breakfast at 7 am.  Then to the classroom.  Back to the canteen for lunch.  More classes after.  Then dinner.  Then more classes before bed.  At night two people had to be on duty for two hours monitoring the others leaving people exhausted.  You never see sunlight while you are there, they said.  That was because they were never taken outside as is done in most prisons.

The re-education requires them to disavow Islam, stop using their native language, give up cultural practices, and become Mandarin-speaking ‘Chinese’.

Such are the freedoms in Xi Jinping’s China.  If China’s other leaders prior to Mr. Xi effected moderate policies in concert with advisers, it is no longer the case.  Mr. Xi works with a small group of like minds.  He has also removed the two-term or eight-year limit on being president.  President for life as some leaders like to call themselves, then why not Mr. Xi.  His anti-democratic values make him eminently qualified. 

An enlightened leader might have used the colorful culture of these minorities to attract tourists and show them the diversity of China.  Not Mr. Xi, who would rather have everyone march in lockstep to a colorless utopia reminiscent of the grey clothing and closed-collar jackets of the Maoist era. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

EU Politics2 hours ago

Innovation performance keeps improving in EU Member States and regions

The Commission has today released the European Innovation Scoreboard 2021, which shows that Europe’s innovation performance continues to improve across the...

Economy4 hours ago

Beyond Being Friends: Russia and China Need an Exclusive Trade Deal

RIAC’s 6th “Russia and China: Cooperation in a New Era” conference in early June showcased once again the will of...

biden-syria biden-syria
Americas7 hours ago

Joe Biden’s European vacations

Joseph Biden, better known as Joe Biden, is an American politician from the Democratic Party who won last year’s presidential...

Tourism9 hours ago

Promoting ‘Brand Africa’ to Realize the Continent’s Tourism Potential

UNWTO’s African Member States will work together to establish a new narrative for tourism across the continent. To better realize...

East Asia10 hours ago

High time for India to Reconsider the One-China Policy

Sino-Indian bilateral relations have seen major challenges in the recent years, beginning with the Doklam crisis to the current pandemic situation. The sugar-coated rhetoric of Beijing proved to be mere duplicity after...

Environment12 hours ago

How food waste is trashing the planet

18 June is Sustainable Gastronomy Day, an international celebration of local cuisine that is produced in ways that are both...

Development14 hours ago

COVID-19 and social protection

The June segment of the 109th International Labour Conference  has come to a close – the first virtual ILC in...

Trending