Paris, Thursday, September 28,
2017
Part 1: French text / Part 2:
English text, Google Translate
Copy :
1- President of the French
Republic
2- European Commission
3- UN
4- Embassies: Australia, North
Korea (Berne), South Korea, China, European, Japan, Russia, USA.
5- Presidents of Parliament and
French Parliamentary Groups
Reflection from the article by
M. Benjamin HABIB on the Korean crisis (lecturer, School of Social Sciences, La
Trobe University, Australia).
Analysts of the Korean crisis
are in subjectivism. They
refuse to name the reality of things and think to compensate for these
discrepancies, between their words and the facts, by a political and media
voluntarism.
This subjectivism makes them
the toys of the same realities which they refuse to name and which they claim
to manipulate as they see fit.
The Korean crisis is the normal
functioning of the administrative structure imposed on Korea by the Panmunjeom
armistice on 27 July 1953.
It is the technique used for
this ordinary which makes it exceptional.
Speaking of North Korea and
South Korea, analysts identify these state realities with ordinary states and
refrain from knowing the actual structure and therefore to understand their
manifestations.
The Armistice does not end a
war between two states but a confrontation between two military-political camps
of the same country, the state having collapsed.
He assigns each of these camps
to a war to keep them away from each other.
It does not end the war or the
administrative purpose of the war, which is the hegemonic unification of
territory by the victory of one camp and the defeat of the other.
By freezing the war, the
armistice transforms this unifying aim into a unifying separation.
It does not create two states.
It is the two camps assigned to
residence that have made up make-up in states. The
latter have no other relation between them than to prepare a hegemonic
reunification.
There can be no other, for
these pseudo-states are in fact the masks, the artificial evolutions of these
military-political camps.
The specificity of the current
crisis is produced by the consequences of the possession of the atomic weapon
by one of the camps.
The quest for atomic weapons is
conceived by North Korea as an ordinary technological step in the permanent
search for the balance of forces induced by the armistice and the policy of
unifying division.
No one disputes that the
military-political camp named North Korea prepared are accession to the atomic
weapon within the framework of its relations of separation reunifying with the
military-political camp named South Korea.
In fact, North Korea's
attainment of nuclear weapons completely changes the nature of relations
between the two camps and accompanies a civilian evolution.
It has several consequences.
1- The end of reunification
This possession forbids
hegemonic reunification on the other side and distorts the processes of rivalry
based on the possession of conventional weapons
Surely, South Korea can no
longer pretend to subjugate North Korea.
But the North Korean team can
not proclaim that it will never agree to be reunified by South Korea and at the
same time say that it claims to reserve the right to reunify for its benefit.
Indeed, the only condition for
such reunification would be atomic terror and this would lead North Korea out
of international legality. What
she proclaims refuses.
2- The emancipation of states
The final impossibility of
reunification under the aegis of one of the two camps also puts an end to the
division as a reference for the organization of the two camps.
The two military-political
camps must disappear in the states they have conceived as their puppets.
The nuclear weapon is probably
only an older civilian evolution.
It follows that it is no longer
two military-political camps that confront each other, but two states that are
formed and distinguished.
This crisis seems insoluble
because analysts confuse the logic of the armistice which is that of the masked
camps in States and the logic imposed by the atom which is the passage of the
Camps to the States full exercise.
This is because the accession
of a camp to the nuclear weapon ends the structuring of Korea by the Armistice
of 1953 and the unifying division that it establishes.
3- The Korean initiative
A consequence of this crisis
caused by the accession to the military atom is that from now on, of their own,
the two Koreas are master of their destiny.
It is not the tutelary powers
which have agreed among themselves and which present their agreements to the
two Koreas.
b. It was one of the two Koreas
which forced the tutelary powers to observe the obsolescence of the Armistice,
of which they had hitherto considered themselves the guarantors.
The West is no longer the
central object, the reference, of Korean evolution.
4- The mutation
The Korean crisis is a stage in
the emancipation of Asia from the former configuration of state relations based
on Western hegemony.
This does not mean that the
West disappears from Asia but is no longer the legal reference.
5- A solution to this crisis,
therefore requires:
1- Take note of the passage
from the Camps to the States
2- To ask these states to
abandon the Panmunjeom process:
a- Giving up division
b- To renounce the
reunification
c. To prohibit any policy based
on the principles of the Armistice.
3- Ask the States which sponsor
each of the two states to renounce imposing their hegemony on the other
alliance.
4- Resume the discussion of
denuclearization on the legal basis of the Non-Proliferation Treaty signed by
the two Koreas previously.
5- There is no basis for
discussion since they are already established and long-standing. The
two Koreas have already gone through this discussion.
Marc SALOMONE
