korea 9- 23.09.17, korea, yao lu, kevin rudd, australia,

Paris, Saturday, September 23, 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 on statements by Mr. Yao Lu, a professor of international relations at the Institute of Public Administration at Jilin University, and Mr. Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia, on the Korean crisis.

Mr. Yao Lu, an international relations teacher at the Institute of Public Administration at Jilin University, and Mr. Kevin Rudd, former Australian Prime Minister, are making proposals to resolve the Korean crisis.

These proposals are interesting to note the hiatus of the public discourse on this crisis because they make visible the obstacles to the understanding of the situation and they lead to the impasses that everyone finds.

1- Professor Yao Lu

Professor Yao Lu told the China Daily newspaper that the key to resolving the issue "is in the hands of the United States and North Korea."

This amounts to subordinating themselves to the spectacular policies of these two States.

The phantasmic form of this dual and frontal opposition of the leaders of these states stems from their inability to name and control the question posed

Their political logic does not allow them to ask the right questions or answer them. That is why they substitute insult for political expression.

The President of the United States calls the President of North Korea "Rocket-Man". In return, the latter calls him the "mentally ill".

They do not do it because they are idiots but because their confrontation is due to the operation of a system that escapes them completely.

They will not go to the "table of negotiations" demanded by Mr. Yao because even with goodwill they would have nothing to say. They can only reproduce this battle of nuclear rooster to infinity.

This verbal battle is proof that their political backwardness on the facts forbids them to be decision-makers in their own responsibilities.

Professor Yao actually advises to remain in the stupor and trembling of this spectacle.

2- Mr. Kevin Rudd

Mr. Kevin Rudd proposes an "international agreement signed with Russia and China that guarantees the security of North Korea and its regime and, in the long term, a military withdrawal from the Americans of South Korea."

It identifies three possible scenarios:

"The first, which is running in Peking and Pyongyang, is that one day or another the Americans will have to accept the reality, even if it is undesirable, that Korea is a fully functional nuclear power. "

b- Vitrification of North Korea

c- "The third scenario involves the denuclearization of North Korea, but it requires that the United States recognize the raison d’Etat of China and North Korea. It would take a new diplomacy and a big deal. In exchange for dismantling ... »

In all three cases, for Mr. Rudd, the only point of view is that of the United States. They accept, they annihilate, they recognize.

This is subject to a power that constantly demonstrates that it is not mistress of the game but that it is only one of the pawns is the common point of all the interventions of the governments concerned and the reason why the debate is blocked.

This feudal homage to the first world power produces its own political line. This builds the diplomatic impasse and then the opening to the threat of war and the policy of "total destruction".

3- The Armistice

The United States is powerless because they act as the cogs of a device they mastered fifty years ago and now manipulate them.

The actors are raised and turned over like pancakes by the armistice of Panmunjeom, July 27, 1953.

This armistice organizes a process of division and reunification whose actors have lost control. North Korea's atomic weapons testify to the obsolescence of this system.

This armistice assigned to the territorial residence the two political armies. For a long time, the two Korean states were the puppets of these political armies.

The corollary of this division was the reunification of Korea to the benefit of a camp. That is why South Korea has not signed the armistice document.

It is this unifying division of two military-political camps evolving under the guise of two states that is in crisis.

The atomic weapons of North Korea exist first because of this prospect of reunification, which is only possible if the two States or pseudo-States are conceived as the products of a division of the same State original.

By putting itself forward as the protector of South Korea, the United States is part of this unifying division. They are paralyzed.

Therefore, apart from "totally destroying" North Korea, the United States can do nothing but phrases in the face of a novelty that disrupts this mechanism.

4- The conference

Rudd's virtual view that his proposals must become credible and effective is therefore not that of the United States, but that of all States, that is, that of the United Nations.

One should not invent "a new diplomacy" but ask the one in place to find out the facts. It would then be able to organize "a great deal". This presupposes a conference.

This cannot be based on "exchanges" or barter. These exchanges could themselves only be based on the policy of unifying division.

The conference must acknowledge that the only outcome to the Korean crisis is the exit of the armistice and the suppression of the reunification division of Korea between the two military-political camps.

5- This implies three Treaties;

1- Between Korea

The conference states that:

a- The two Koreas are two sovereign countries and independent of one another.

b- These two countries do not legally form a division.

c. All arrangements for reunification are abandoned and prohibited.

d) The relations of the two Koreas continue cultural ties and develop the well-understood interest of States and civil societies.

e- The two new countries can change their name.

This is not the first time that Korea has divided itself into two independent states.

2- Between the powers

The Allied or Protecting Powers of the two Koreas renounce any device aimed at the reunification of the two Koreas and any policy aimed at hegemony over the other Korea.

3- Denuclearization

a- The denuclearization can be discussed since security is assured to the two Koreas.

b. The two Koreas and the Allied Powers have a solid experience of these discussions.

There will be no other basis for a "great accord" and peace.

Conclusion

As former Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd can take the initiative to present this conference. It may also interest the Australian government in its organization.

Marc SALOMONE