Connect with us

East Asia

Hotbeds of War II- Arms and Sanctions: U.S.A. and North Korea

Published

on

A hermit kingdom where government officials flatter their leader with odd songs. A lady in pink, in an enthusiastic tone, announcing some “successful” missile test or the video of the test it-self is the most we get to see of it. North Korea is a different country. Criticism and sanctions has done little to stop its ambitious nuclear program.  

While discussing the conflicts that can lead to an all-out war, the one between North Korea and USA is the most unstable and dangerous one. Time and again, tensions had escalated between the two but the world has been fortunate enough. However, this is not a solution. The conflict can best be described in terms of a volcano that can erupt at any given time.

Even the slightest spark between the countries send ripples across the world. Because the stakes are high, very high. The point of discussion is nuclear. The men concerned, capricious and hence, dangerous. Strings connect other countries and drag them inside most of the times, unwillingly (China is an ally of North, Russia hosts the greatest number of North Korean workers and South Korea looks to USA for help, with thousands of US troops stationed there). Despite sanctions and international criticism North Korea continues to conduct nuclear experiments, blatantly degrading Non Proliferation Treaty. This year the country conducted 18 missile tests. In an attempt to quenching their thirst for nuclear pyrotechnics, they tried a hydrogen bomb as well.

On August 29, 2017, North Korea launched a ballistic missile that flew over the Japanese island of Hokkaido and fell into the Pacific, 1180 km east of Japan. Proving inured to international flak and ire, on September 14th, 2017, the regime launched another missile that followed the same trajectory: flying over Hokkaido islands dropping into Pacific Ocean. This was just after the KCNA, news agency of North Korea, released a statement threatening to sink Japan into the sea. South Korea responded by a fire drill. Japan was on high alert. Evidently, the second test was a reaction to the recently imposed sanctions on North Korea. (See image below).

unscimg

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reprimanded North Korea in a stern manner, conducting emergency exercises in Japan teaching people how to evacuate in case of a strike. Mr. Trump has also said that “all options are on table” to deal with DPRK.

By a scrupulously observing the intricate geo-political milieu of the said region one can easily see that there are more than two stake-holders in the game. North Korea shares a border with China. Also, China is the biggest trading partner of the former. Whereas South Korea is a US ally. Both China and USA wants to have a strong hold in this region given the magnitude of international trade and tanker traffic passing through it. South China Sea (which would be analyzed in the last part) is the most disputed and significant area, which is located in this region. China is not happy with their naughty neighbor but acting against the country to an extent that it becomes unstable is not an option. Hence, their balking in adopting a complete oil embargo. If this happens there can a huge outflow of people which will, naturally, enter China…disturbing and disrupting the socio-economic order there. Also, in case of a total economic collapse of North Korea, South can takeover it which in turn will give US an opportunity to “contain” China.

Evidently, there are financial dimensions to it as well. Mr. Mir Mohammad Ali Khan, Wall Street Investment Banker and Chairman of an Advisory Company, shared a very comprehensive view of the financial repercussions of this conflict

“We are about to see an Asian Financial Crisis bigger than 1997 and become a contagion which will make 2008 crisis look like a joke. Mr. Trump without realizing the financial implication of his threatening tweet(s) has promised to sanction banks doing business with North Korea and cut off “All” trade ties with countries doing business with the North Koreans.

The problem is Trump threatening to put sanctions on all financial institutions doing business with Kim Jong’s nation. China is the biggest trade partner of North Korea. 85% of the North Korean trade goes through China. What Trump forgot to realize that the four lenders of China are the biggest in the world. Bigger than JP Morgan. HSBC. Or any other bank in America. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has assets over $ 3.47 trillion dollars. China Construction Bank over $2.8 trillion dollars. Agricultural Bank of China and Bank of China, $ 2.93 and $3.02 trillion respectively. And all these banks do business with North Korea. While JP Morgan comes in at the 6th place with $ 2.49 trillion in assets and HSBC at 7th place with $ 2.37 trillion dollars. Another noteworthy fact is that the size of the Chinese lending pool has surpassed the entire Euro Zone lending pool. At above $33 trillion dollars. If Trump does what he is promising to do, to put sanctions on any financial institution doing business with the North Koreans, then we will see the world’s biggest financial crisis. Something which will even dwarf the famous 1929 market crash. This will be a crash of the entire financial sector of the world.

Secondly if America breaks all trade ties with China then China will immediately en-cash what it has in United States Treasuries, or what is better known as the American debt, which is 4% of the entire American debt of $19 trillion dollars. If China liquidates almost a trillion dollars of its holdings in the treasuries, the American debt market will crash and it will cause the European Debt market of €13 trillion to crash with it. It’s a wait and see approach at this moment….economic WORLD WAR ONE is in the making. Trump is caught between the Devil (himself) and The Deep Blue Sea. I hope the devil gets his senses back and listens to his advisors.”

Matters are made worse when the leaders on both sides are what they are: unpredictable. If Kim is a dangerous man, Trump is amateur politician. With the hope that things won’t move towards a military action, that would be unimaginably destructive, we can hope for more stringent sanctions that can put a kibosh on any further nuclear plans subsequently preventing escalation.

However, the response from North Korea, after the imposition of recent sanctions, is symptomatic of the regimes’ obstinacy in pursuing its nuclear program. Korean regime may be inured to criticism but had to be stopped at some point. Otherwise, they can be a cause of unnecessary turmoil, for themselves, and for the whole world as well.

Independent Economic Analyst, Writer and Editor. Contributes columns to different newspapers. He is a columnist for Oilprice.com, where he analyzes Crude Oil and markets. Also a sub-editor of an online business magazine and a Guest Editor in Modern Diplomacy. His interests range from Economic history to Classical literature.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Importance of peace in Afghanistan is vital for China

Published

on

image source: chinamission.be

There are multiple passages from Afghanistan to China, like Wakhan Corridor that is 92 km long, stretching to Xinjiang in China. It was formed in 1893 as a result of an agreement between the British Empire and Afghanistan. Another is Chalachigu valley that shares the border with Tajikistan to the north, Pakistan to the south, and Afghanistan to the west. It is referred to as the Chinese part of the Wakhan Corridor. However, the Chinese side of the valley is closed to the public and only local shepherds are allowed. Then there is Wakhjir Pass on the eastern side of the Wakhan corridor but is not accessible to the general public. The terrain is rough on the Afghan side. There are no roads along the Wakhjir Pass, most of the terrain is a dirt track. Like other passages, it can only be accessed via either animals or SUVs, and also due to extreme weather it is open for only seven months throughout the year. North Wakhjir Pass, also called Tegermansu Pass, is mountainous on the border of China and Afghanistan. It stretches from Tegermansu valley on the east and Chalachigu Valley in Xinjiang. All of these passages are extremely uncertain and rough which makes them too risky to be used for trade purposes. For example, the Chalagigu valley and Wakhjir Pass are an engineering nightmare to develop, let alone make them viable.

Similarly, the Pamir mountain range is also unstable and prone to landslides. Both of these routes also experience extreme weather conditions. Alternatives: Since most of the passages are risky for travel, alternatively, trade activities can be routed via Pakistan. For example, there is an access road at the North Wakhjir that connects to Karakoram Highway.

By expanding the road network from Taxkorgan in Xinjiang to Gilgit, using the Karakoram Highway is a probable option. Land routes in Pakistan are already being developed for better connectivity between Islamabad and Beijing as part of CPEC. These routes stretch from Gwadar up to the North.

The Motorway M-1, which runs from Islamabad to Peshawar can be used to link Afghanistan via Landi Kotal. Although the Karakoram highway also suffers from extreme weather and landslides, it is easier for engineers to handle as compared to those in Afghanistan.

China is the first door neighbor of Afghanistan having a common border. If anything happens in Afghanistan will have a direct impact on China. China has a declared policy of peaceful developments and has abandoned all disputes and adversaries for the time being and focused only on economic developments. For economic developments, social stability and security is a pre-requisite. So China emphasizes peace and stability in Afghanistan. It is China’s requirement that its border with Afghanistan should be secured, and restrict movements of any unwanted individuals or groups. China is compelled by any government in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of its borders in the region.

Taliban has ensured china that, its territory will not use against China and will never support any insurgency in China. Based on this confidence, China is cooperating with the Taliban in all possible manners. On the other hand, China is a responsible nation and obliged to extend humanitarian assistance to starving Afghans. While, the US is coercing and exerting pressures on the Taliban Government to collapse, by freezing their assets, and cutting all economic assistance, and lobbying with its Western allies, for exerting economic pressures on the Taliban, irrespective of human catastrophe in Afghanistan. China is generously assisting in saving human lives in Afghanistan. Whereas, the US is preferring politics over human lives in Afghanistan.

The US has destroyed Afghanistan during the last two decades, infrastructure was damaged completely, Agriculture was destroyed, Industry was destroyed, and the economy was a total disaster. While, China is assisting Afghanistan to rebuild its infrastructure, revive agriculture, industrialization is on its way. Chinese mega initiative, Belt and Road (BRI) is hope for Afghanistan.

A peaceful Afghanistan is a guarantee for peace and stability in China, especially in the bordering areas. The importance of Afghan peace is well conceived by China and practically, China is supporting peace and stability in Afghanistan. In fact, all the neighboring countries, and regional countries, are agreed upon by consensus that peace and stability in Afghanistan is a must and prerequisite for whole regions’ development and prosperity.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Shared Territorial Concern, Opposition to US Intervention Prompt Russia’s Support to China on Taiwan Question

Published

on

image credit: kremlin.ru

The situation around the island of Taiwan is raising concerns not only in Chinese mainland, Taiwan island or in the US, but also in the whole world. Nobody would like to see a large-scale military clash between China and the US in the East Pacific. Potential repercussions of such a clash, even if it does not escalate to the nuclear level, might be catastrophic for the global economy and strategic stability, not to mention huge losses in blood and treasure for both sides in this conflict.

Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow continued to firmly support Beijing’s position on Taiwan as an integral part of China. Moreover, he also underlined that Moscow would support Beijing in its legitimate efforts to reunite the breakaway province with the rest of the country. A number of foreign media outlets paid particular attention not to what Lavrov actually said, but omitted his other remarks: the Russian official did not add that Moscow expects reunification to be peaceful and gradual in a way that is similar to China’s repossession of Hong Kong. Many observers of the new Taiwan Straits crisis unfolding concluded that Lavrov’s statement was a clear signal to all parties of the crisis: Russia would likely back even Beijing’s military takeover of the island.

Of course, diplomacy is an art of ambiguity. Lavrov clearly did not call for a military solution to the Taiwan problem. Still, his remarks were more blunt and more supportive of Beijing than the standard Russia’s rhetoric on the issue. Why? One possible explanation is that the Russian official simply wanted to sound nice to China as Russia’s major strategic partner. As they say, “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Another explanation is that Lavrov recalled the Russian experience with Chechnya some time ago, when Moscow had to fight two bloody wars to suppress secessionism in the North Caucasus. Territorial integrity means a lot for the Russian leadership. This is something that is worth spilling blood for.

However, one can also imagine that in Russia they simply do not believe that if things go really bad for Taiwan island, the US would dare to come to its rescue and that in the end of the day Taipei would have to yield to Beijing without a single shot fired. Therefore, the risks of a large-scale military conflict in the East Pacific are perceived as relatively low, no matter what apocalyptic scenarios various military experts might come up with.

Indeed, over last 10 or 15 years the US has developed a pretty nasty habit of inciting its friends and partners to take risky and even reckless decisions and of letting these friends and partners down, when the latter had to foot the bill for these decisions. In 2008, the Bush administration explicitly or implicitly encouraged Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili to launch a military operation against South Ossetia including killing some Russian peacekeepers stationed there. But when Russia interfered to stop and to roll back the Georgian offensive, unfortunate Saakashvili was de-facto abandoned by Washington.

During the Ukrainian conflicts of 2013-14, the Obama administration enthusiastically supported the overthrow of the legitimate president in Kiev. However, it later preferred to delegate the management of the crisis to Berlin and to Paris, abstaining from taking part in the Normandy process and from signing the Minsk Agreements. In 2019, President Donald Trump promised his full support to Juan Guaidó, Head of the National Assembly in Venezuela, in his crusade against President Nicolas when the government of Maduro demonstrated its spectacular resilience. Juan Guaido very soon almost completely disappeared from Washington’s political radar screens.

Earlier this year the Biden administration stated its firm commitment to shouldering President Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan in his resistance to Taliban advancements. But when push came to shove, the US easily abandoned its local allies, evacuated its military personal in a rush and left President Ghani to seek political asylum in the United Arab Emirates.

Again and again, Washington gives reasons to conclude that its partners, clients and even allies can no longer consider it as a credible security provider. Would the US make an exception for the Taiwan island? Of course, one can argue that the Taiwan island is more important for the US than Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ukraine and Georgia taken together. But the price for supporting the Taiwan island could also be much higher for the US than the price it would have paid in many other crisis situations. The chances of the US losing to China over Taiwan island, even if Washington mobilizes all of its available military power against Beijing, are also very high. Still, we do not see such a mobilization taking place now. It appears that the Biden administration is not ready for a real showdown with Beijing over the Taiwan question.

If the US does not put its whole weight behind the Taiwan island, the latter will have to seek some kind of accommodation with the mainland on terms abandoning its pipe-dreams of self-determination and independence. This is clear to politicians not only in East Asia, but all over the place, including Moscow. Therefore, Sergey Lavrov has reasons to firmly align himself with the Chinese position. The assumption in the Kremlin is that Uncle Sam will not dare to challenge militarily the Middle Kingdom. Not this time.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

East Asia

Russia-Japan Relations: Were Abe’s Efforts In Vain?

Published

on

Expanding the modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward.

One year after the end of Shinzo Abe’s long period of leadership, Japan has a new prime minister once again. The greatest foreign policy challenge the new Japanese government led by Fumio Kishida is facing is the intensifying confrontation between its large neighbor China and its main ally America. In addition to moves to energize the Quad group to which Japan belongs alongside Australia, India, and the United States, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has concluded a deal with Canberra and London to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines which in future could patrol the Western Pacific close to Chinese shores. The geopolitical fault lines in the Indo-Pacific region are fast turning into frontlines.

In this context, does anything remain of the eight-year-long effort by former prime minister Abe to improve relations with Russia on the basis of greater economic engagement tailored to Moscow’s needs? Russia’s relations with China continue to develop, including in the military domain; Russia’s constitutional amendments passed last year prohibit the handover of Russian territory, which doesn’t bode well for the long-running territorial dispute with Japan over the South Kuril Islands; and Russian officials and state-run media have been remembering and condemning the Japanese military’s conduct during World War II, something they chose to play down in the past. True, Moscow has invited Tokyo to participate in economic projects on the South Kuril Islands, but on Russian terms and without an exclusive status.

To many, the answer to the above question is clear, and it is negative. Yet that attitude amounts to de facto resignation, a questionable approach. Despite the oft-cited but erroneous Cold War analogy, the present Sino-American confrontation has created two poles in the global system, but not—at least, not yet—two blocs. Again, despite the popular and equally incorrect interpretation, Moscow is not Beijing’s follower or vassal. As a power that is particularly sensitive about its own sovereignty, Russia seeks to maintain an equilibrium—which is not the same as equidistance—between its prime partner and its main adversary. Tokyo would do well to understand that and take it into account as it structures its foreign relations.

The territorial dispute with Russia is considered to be very important for the Japanese people, but it is more symbolic than substantive. In practical terms, the biggest achievement of the Abe era in Japan-Russia relations was the founding of a format for high-level security and foreign policy consultations between the two countries. With security issues topping the agenda in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining the channel for private direct exchanges with a neighboring great power that the “2+2” formula offers is of high value. Such a format is a trademark of Abe’s foreign policy which, while being loyal to Japan’s American ally, prided itself on pursuing Japanese national interests rather than solely relying on others to take them into account.

Kishida, who for five years served as Abe’s foreign minister, will now have a chance to put his own stamp on the country’s foreign policy. Yet it makes sense for him to build on the accomplishments of his predecessor, such as using the unique consultation mechanism mentioned above to address geopolitical and security issues in the Indo-Pacific region, from North Korea to Afghanistan. Even under Abe, Japan’s economic engagement with Russia was by no means charity. The Russian leadership’s recent initiatives to shift more resources to eastern Siberia offer new opportunities to Japanese companies, just like Russia’s early plans for energy transition in response to climate change, and the ongoing development projects in the Arctic. In September 2021, the annual Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok did not feature top-level Japanese participation, but that should be an exception, not the rule.

Japan will remain a trusted ally of the United States for the foreseeable future. It is also safe to predict that at least in the medium term, and possibly longer, the Russo-Chinese partnership will continue to grow. That is no reason for Moscow and Tokyo to regard each other as adversaries, however. Moreover, since an armed conflict between America and China would spell a global calamity and have a high chance of turning nuclear, other major powers, including Russia and Japan, have a vital interest in preventing such a collision. Expanding the still very modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward. The absence of a peace treaty between the two countries more than seventy-five years after the end of the war is abnormal, yet that same unfinished business should serve as a stimulus to persevere. Giving up is an option, but not a good one.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Africa1 hour ago

Resource Curse and Underdevelopment Give Way to Mass Unrest and Political Instability in Sudan

As reported October 25 by the reputable state media, Al Arabiya, Sudanese army and a cross-section of its population have...

Economy6 hours ago

Regulatory Noose Tightens Around the Federal Reserve: Powell Reaffirmed a Second Term

The Federal Reserve has been under a sharp gaze since the twilight years of former president Donald J. Trump. Whether...

Russia8 hours ago

Russia’s role in the revival of the Iran Nuclear deal

Iran in recent weeks has stated on more than one occasion, that is willing to return to the negotiation table...

Middle East9 hours ago

Turkey and Iran find soft power more difficult than hard power

The times they are a changin’. Iranian leaders may not be Bob Dylan fans, but his words are likely to...

Intelligence11 hours ago

The impact of the joint security coordination between Israel and Turkey in Afghanistan

First: Analysis of the potential scenarios of (Israeli-Arab or Iranian-Arab security coordination on Afghanistan), or the extent of success of...

Economy14 hours ago

United World of Job Seekers and Job Creators Will Boost Recovery

Why is there so much disconnect between entrepreneurial thinking and bureaucratic thinking? Has the world of education, certification, occupation divided...

International Law16 hours ago

Debunking the Sovereignty: From Foucault to Agamben

“Citing the end of Volume I of The History of Sexuality, Agamben notes that for Foucault, the “threshold of modernity”...

Trending