Paris,
Wednesday 20 September 2017
Part 1: French text / Part
2: English text, Google translation
Copy :
1- President of the French
Republic
2- European Commission
3- UN
4- Embassies: North Korea
(Berne), South Korea, China, European, Japan, Russia, USA.
5- Presidents of Parliament
and French Parliamentary Groups
Reflection on the statements
of UN Secretary-General António Guterres and US President Donald Trump at the
UN session of 19 September 2017.
On September 19, 2017 at the
United Nations headquarters in New York, US President Donald Trump gave the
United States' view on the Korean crisis.
The guiding formula of his
speech is:
"No nation on earth has
any interest in seeing this band of criminals arm themselves in this way. The
US is very strong and patient, but if they are forced to defend themselves or
their allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. "
Like all statesmen, Mr.
Trump said the essential in a few words.
The policy of confrontation
between North Korea and the United States can only lead to total war and
"total destruction".
The so-called
"diplomatic and political solution" policy proposes nothing other
than to postpone the military shock.
The difference between the
two policies is simply that one wants a capitulation of North Korea and the
other expects a renunciation.
The evolution of these two
policies is contingent on North Korea's intransigence on its political
objectives and the means to achieve it.
The reality principle will
sweep away intermediate solutions and impose a meeting of the states concerned
around the contradictions of the military solution.
The war will then shift from
an altercation between the United States and North Korea towards a
confrontation between the United States and its allies on the one hand and
China and Russia on the other.
The impasse is therefore
complete between:
1- North Korea, which is
locked in a confrontation with the United States,
2- China and Russia, which
can not accept either this provocative policy or the destruction of the North
Korean regime,
3- The United States and its
allies who can not accept to be attacked anyway.
Whatever the illusions of
each other, this impasse will really lead to the launch of the excessive
ballistic missile and therefore to the war of destruction and consequently to
the confrontation between the great powers and also, which is often neglected,
between the South and North.
The incantatory imprecations
of a part of the press will not change anything.
This is because the
protagonists refuse to conform their analyzes to the facts and thus bring the
right answers to the right questions.
A realistic analysis of the
facts would be in line with the statement of UN Secretary-General António
Guterres that a "political solution" is the only democratic way to
the Korean crisis
In this case, the use of
force would be the force of law and nuclear would emerge from the debate.
Realism would make it
necessary to note that the present object of North Korea's action is not a
dispute with the United States but the attainment of the recognition and
security of its own State.
What they do not measure is
that this implies the creation of two Korean states in this case.
Contrary to evidence, the
two current Korean states are virtual states. They are not
States as of right in their territories and in their Korean relations.
The current North Korea and South Korea are only the state figures, the masks, of the only international realities that were created on 27 July 1953 by the Armistice of Panmunjeom.
What was created then is the
assignment of the two military-political camps to the leadership of two areas
sharing the territory of Korea.
It is these
military-political camps that have become a state and manipulate their
functioning at their convenience.
This territorial assignment
resulted in a political assignment to successful reunification.
This reunification so
permeates the constitution of the two zones that the so-called South Korea did
not sign the Armistice. It therefore already considered that
division was only a temporary passage towards reunification.
By means of atomic weapons,
the so-called North Korea zone manages this policy of reunification to prevent
it from being done to its detriment.
There is therefore no
solution by the infinite repetition of the consequences of the armistice of
Panmunjeom, which are division and reunification.
It is precisely in this
logic of the armistice, of division and of reunification, that the supporters
of military action are established as supporters of the diplomatic solution by
asking one of the two camps to capitulate or to fall its guard.
Now, the armistice is
precisely the product of the impossibility for one side to bend the other.
The more they develop their
maneuvers to achieve it, the more they will fall into this duality and
strengthen the absolutist resolution of North Korea.
Political withdrawal from
the armistice of Panmunjeom is therefore necessary.
For this it is necessary, by
Treaties:
A- Korea
1- To create two sovereign
states in place of the two camps which have acquired the status of a state
without actually being so.
2- End the policy of
reunification.
3- The 38th parallel becomes
a frontier and ceases to be the place of arrival of the last war and the place
of departure of the next.
B- The Allies
The two allied networks of
the new Korean states renounce the hegemony of the alliance opposite.
C- The atom
a- Both Koreas already have
extensive experience in the legal process of controlling atomic weapons.
b- The establishment of the
ad hoc control of the military atom in favor of the civilian atom can be
resumed since the security of the two new states is assured.
At that moment, the use of
force may become law.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire