korea 12. 09.10.17, korea, trump, jia, reunification, atomic weapon, war, reality

Paris, Monday 9 October 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 remarks of Mr. Trump, President of the United States, and the article by Mr. Jia Quingguo, Dean of the Faculty of International Relations of Peking University, on the Australian University site East Asia Forum.

See previous articles on Madic50.blogspot.com

1-11.08.17

2- 29.08. 17

3- 03.09.17

4- 05.09.17

5-10.09.17
6- 15.09.17

7- 18.09.17

8-20.09.17
9- 23.09.17

10- 24.09.17

11- 28.09.17

1) - The fact Trump

On October 7, 2017, by his Twitter account, the President of the United States dropped an enigmatic sentence:

"Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years. The agreements and the massive amounts of money paid have had no effect. "The agreements were broken before the ink was dry, but there was only one thing will walk ".

On 30 September, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson confirmed the existence of contacts between the United States and North Korea.

President Trump replied publicly: "I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful secretary of state, that he is wasting his time negotiating. Keep your energy, Rex, we will do what we have to do. "

On September 19, at the United Nations, President Trump declared: "If they [the United States] are forced to defend themselves, or defend their allies, then we will have no choice but to destroy them completely North Korea. ".

2) - The statesman and the academics

Is this speech of a statesman really different from that of academics?

Would there be a frontal opposition between a head of state who would be swept away, warlike and simplistic, and civilian analysts who would be reasoned, pacifist and conscious of the complexity of things?

In reality, these two currents of analysis and proposals for action come together on the same logical trajectory.

The only discursive difference is their capacity to lead verbally to the end the common basis of their reasoning.

1- Academics shrink from the consequences of the logic that underlies their reasoning.

a- The most pacifists propose that the United States capitulate in order to make disappear the conflict then they let the fate decide for them.

The most bellicose leave the final punctuation of their reasoning as a result of events.

2- President Trump sets out the inescapable conclusions of this logic; war, its violence and its consequences.

3- This military trajectory is very controversial formally but nobody proposes another.

Those who oppose the diplomatic solution to the military solution stick to this formality and also rely on events.

b- What distinguishes and singles out Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump is that they are the only ones who propose something. Atomic war is concrete.

3) - Dean Jia Quingguo

An academic exposes, implements, the point of view that is found in all academic analysts who do not propose an unlikely capitulation of the United States.

Mr. Jia Quingguo is Dean of the Faculty of International Relations at Peking University.

On September 11, on the Australian university site East Asia Forum, he advocates:

1- An agreement between China, the United States and South Korea.

2- To "discuss an emergency plan on North Korea".

3- "agreeing on a takeover of the North-South arsenal to avoid any risk of proliferation".

4- Take charge of the North Korean population by "setting up reception camps".

5- Take charge of the North Korean public order "by putting in place a force capable of restoring internal order".

6- Set up foreign troops, for example South Sudan, or "A peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations".

7- "Forming a new government under the aegis of the international community ...".

The logic developed by Dean Jia is exactly the same as that of President Trump, except that he calls "assumption" what Mr. Trump describes as an offensive war. President Trump also wants to reach agreement with China and South Korea, open reception camps, "take charge" of the military arsenal, administration, internal order, "install foreign troops" such as those of South Korea, "form a new government" under the aegis of the UN.

He too would like to distribute chewing gums to North Korean children.

But the statesman can not afford words. He knows that in order to set up foreign troops in a country and seize his military arsenal, he must be made to wage war, to defeat him militarily, to annihilate him in one way or another.

4) - The filiation

Each of these two logics is based on the denial of the sovereignty of North Korea.

They are a continuation of the invasions of Iraq or Libya on the grounds of the dangerousness of their leaders.

These wars have imposed the violent overthrow by Western foreign forces of the regimes in place as an international political norm.

Through these wars, the first and foremost criminals are never tried, the Western party, led by the United States, verifies the state of its omnipotence, its world domination, the impunity of its leaders and collaborators.

It is remarkable, however, that none of these wars leads to a pax romana; a peace of the conqueror.

The conquered country should subordinate itself to the dictates of the conqueror and live under its law.

This is what university analysts predict. For Dean Jia, the "taking over" or "taking control" of the whole of North Korea would lead to his assault by his enslavement.

This is what was planned for Iraq and Libya.

Now, if it is a fact that emerges from these invasions, which are also crimes against the law from which war crimes are committed, it is precisely the invaders' inability to "control" anything, To "take charge" of the population even in "reception camps", to "restore internal order", to "form a government worthy of the name" with or without the UN.

The disorder, chaos, and civil war that have been established by foreign criminal interventions in Iraq and especially in Libya are not just disruptions as a result of war.

These disorders are the result of the aims of war; namely the overthrow of the regime.

They are precisely the demonstration of the Western party's inability to "take charge" of anything and the inanity of these "take-control" policies advocated as verbal substitutes for a war that we do not dare not named.

5) - The Deceptive Truth

President Trump says "Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years."

This formulation is inaccurate and misleading to the US government itself.

For 25 years the Presidents have spoken to the politico-military camps to which the 1953 Armistice attributed the northern and southern parts of Korea.

The two current Koreas are the two parts not of Korea but of the Armistice.

The issues of economic, cultural, etc. are a bullshit in the reports of the two Koreas. They are the masks of two military-political camps that have each been assigned a territory to lead the reunification in the future.

The only political function of these two parties is to manage the division and prepare for reunification.

By asking the political-military camp opposite to give up a weapon, "the Presidents of the United States and their administrations" ask him to renounce his function of maintaining the division and to place himself in the reunification.

Mr. Trump is right in saying that this is a deaf dialogue. This is the regular operation of the Panmunjeom Armistice.

6) - The balance

The atomic weapon certainly destroys the balance maintained by conventional weapons.

a- It gives North Korea the opportunity to terrorize and destroy South Korea.

b) It forbids South Korea to hope to set up its hegemony over North Korea.

It does not follow, however, that this balance does not continue to organize the principle of division and reunification installed by the Armistice.

By astutely asking the northern part to disarm, the American ally of the southern part thinks to reverse the imbalance.

The North could no longer militarily oppose reunification.

b- The southern part could reunite under its hegemony.

If the leadership of the northern part wanted at all costs the nuclear weapon it is precisely to prohibit these reversals of equilibrium which make lose the hope to direct the reunification.

7) - The construction

If President Trump and others want to "talk to North Korea," or the South, they have to build their interlocutors.

It is only when the two military-political camps disappear for the benefit of two states that dialogue with each of these states will be possible without one implicitly influencing the other's politics.

That implies :

1- By treaty between the two Koreas, the exit of the armistice of 1953 and the abandonment of the division as constitutional norm and reunification as function of the States.

2- By treaty between the allies of the two Koreas, the renunciation of the hegemony on the Korean camp of the other alliance.

At that time, the discussions on "a denuclearization of the Korean peninsula", in the words of Chinese diplomacy, could start again usefully.

The two Koreas already have all the pluralistic structure necessary for such a discussion. Indeed, they are, or have been, signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

6) – Conclusion

The United States and Europe would benefit from taking account of local realities in order to re-establish an active presence in the 21st century which is so useful in Asia.

Marc SALOMONE