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.
