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
6- 15.09.17
7- 18.09.17
8-20.09.17
9- 23.09.17
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
