Can U.S-North Korea Denuclearisation Talks Be Saved After a Failed Second Summit?

A second summit between United States President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, in the Vietnamese capitol Hanoi has past without any agreement.

President Trump said that he could not agree to Chairman Kim’s demands for lifting all sanctions on North Korea, in exchange for dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex. North Korean officials rebuked Trump’s comments, stating that they only wanted some key sanction lifted. It seems that both sides were not willing to budge and find some middle ground towards a first major agreement on the issue of denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.     .

With two summits past, surely a third meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim could only occur in the future if there is much more groundwork between diplomats from both sides. I was sceptical of the first summit in Singapore in 2018, but afterwards agreed that it was a ice breaker of shorts, to get the ball rolling. Even though the outcome of the first summit was just a vague statement agreed between the two leaders, the future was looking brighter.

Over the eight month gap between summits, senior diplomats met numerous times, including U.S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho. I was think when the second summit was announced, the diplomats had reached either an agreement ready to be signed or at least a roadmap to present at the summit, but from the sudden collapse of talks, this does not seem the case.

So what next? It’s too early to speculate on a long term path, but signs of North Korea rebuilding their main rocket launch sight in Sohae, and images indicating a planned missile launch at the Sanumdong facility, are not good signs for future negotiations. If these actions are true, Chairman Kim is just trying to pressure the U.S into making concessions.

If both sides are truly interested in finding a solution, a long term road map is required. The issue is how to come to an agreed roadmap, as both sides differ on what denuclearisation means. The Trump administration wants a Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Dismantlement (CVID) of North Korea’s nuclear programme, and Chairman Kims wants full sanctions relieve and security guarantees (including an official peace agreement). To overcome these differences, as indicated at the failed second summit, some slight sanctions relieve may be required to allow North Korea to follow through with commitments they have announced, including dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex. If both parties can agree to some small concessions, I think this could be a way forward in future talks.

More trust is required between both sides. Perhaps as been mentioned by experts, a liaison office in both countries, will assist in coordinating future negotiations on a more regular basis. Also, a more multilateral path in negotiations could spur on further discussions. Although, the Six-party talks in the early 2000s failed, more involvement of both South Korea and China could be the key to overcome differences between American and North Korean objectives. As China is the only major backer of North Korea, and South Korea forging greater relations with their counterparts in the North — and with both counties likely to suffer most in any military conflict between the U.S and North Korea, their direct involvement in discussions are paramount in a future roadmap to denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula.

U.S strikes against Assad's forces have only complicated the Syrian conflict

The unilateral strikes by the United States on a Syrian air base have only further complicated an already messy conflict, rather than offer any strategic outcome on the ground in Syria or chance for peace.   

                                               

The decision to take this course of action seemed to be based on domestic consideration — perhaps also  to show Russia and even China — that President Trump is willing to use unilateral action when required, and for America's national interests. It may have been a coincidence that China's President Xi Jinping was on a visit to America, at the same time as the strikes were occurring, but I thing this was not the case. I think Trump used the strikes against Assad's forces as a pretext to outline to President Xi, that America could take similar action against North Korea, if China does not begin resolving the nuclear arms issue. This is in light of Trumps earlier warning for China and North Korea.

Perhaps even domestic issue played into Trump's calculations. Conducting a military operation against Assad's forces  have turned focus away from Trumps decreasing popularity and Russia's links to the Trump campaign. Media attention have been on the administration's foreign policy, rather then Trump's problems at home.      


Since Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, the U.S and other western countries have blamed Assad’s forces where’s Russia had argued that Syrian jets had hit a rebel controlled chemical weapons facility located in the town. As we know, getting any viable facts out of Syria is extremely difficult, with all sides posting misinformation. Due to this lack of viable facts or information, an independent investigation should have been concluded before Trump ordered unilateral strikes on a Syrian airbase.

The strikes against Assad’s forces will not change the situation on the ground or Assad’s overall aims. As there is no independent evidence of the true perpetrator(s) of Tuesday’s chemical attack, Assad will unlikely change tact and halt his forces from continuing their combat operations against opposition forces. This action by the U.S could just embolden Assad to step up conventional attacks on rebel and civilian positions. As the former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, has said, Assad has no military advantage from using chemical weapons, and that we can not rule out that the attack was staged by opposition forces. Until we have clear independent proof of who conducted the chemical attack, we can not accuse the Assad regime or opposition forces.

Trumps decision to order the strikes could well further strain relations with Russia, and drag America and it’s allies deeper into the conflict. The Russian President, Putin, and other officials have condemned the unilateral strikes. They have so far refrained from offering any plans for retaliation, which is understandable, as they will not want to escalate the situation further.

The question now is what happens next? The likely answer will be no major change on the ground in the short term, though in the long term, this unilateral action could well damage future peace efforts, and any cooperation between the U.S and Russia. The only way that this strike will have any purpose is if America changes policy toward Assad and militarily and politically begin regime change in Syria. This seems unlikely as there is no wider support within America or it's western allies. 

As for Assad, he could reconsider his regime position concerning peace talks with opposition groups. He may decide not to participate in future talks, especially if Russia and Iran steadfastly remain in support, which will likely be the case. Russia and Iran could well increase its military and/or economic support.    

The Spectacle of the U.S Party Nominations Has Truly Begun

The gloves are truly off, as both the Democratic and Republican parties have begun their primary elections to choose their candidates, to contest the Presidential elections in November. The caucus held on the 1^st February in the state of Iowa will be the first of many over the next 5/6 months, with the Hollywood style rallies and big spending candidates, debating and trying to persuade voters and delegates.      

The first blow in this long contest has been made in Iowa, with a somewhat surprise outcome for the Republican candidacy, with Senator Ted Cruz taking 27.7% popular vote, with Donald Trump 24.3% and Marco Rubio 23.1%. On the Democrat side, there was no surprising outcome, with Hilary Clinton with 49.9% of the popular vote, just snatching victory over fellow Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders 49.6%, and in third place Martin O'Malley taking only 0.06% of the vote, who has since ended his campaign, with only Clinton and Sanders left. So after the first caucus by both parties, the results show a tie within the Democrats and a narrow lead by Ted Cruz

 The polls and media got the Republican Caucus wrong with most polling agencies tipping a victory for Trump, but with an evangelical and more liberal state like Iowa, it seems Trump’s conservative anti-immigration focused campaign did not persuade voters in this small rural state in middle America. As for the Democrats, the campaign could become more contested than first thought.  With Iowa been a small state with a population of around three million, the numerical outcome for both parties is minor compared to the bigger states, but with it been the first time the public has had the chance to vote in this campaign, the outcome could be a sign of how the rest of the nation may vote and could sway the delegates at the party Conventions in June. We will have to wait and see. The real signs of who could become their party’s nominee will be when we find out the results of the so called ‘super Tuesday,’ when both parties hold the most primary/caucuses on the same day, to take place on 1^st March. This day is very important and could make or break a candidate’s campaign with almost half the total delegates on offer. With such a large amount of delegates to be gained by either candidates, the outcome could become crucial come convention time.

With such divides in policy and even ideology between and within the Democratic and Republican parties, and with an unconventional candidate in Donald Trump, this election campaign could become one of the most interesting ever. with so many diverse candidates, we cannot really predict who will win the party nominations or even become President, as the polls are failing to show a true outcome of results. Perhaps after ‘Super Tuesday,’ we might have a clearer picture, especially when some candidates end their campaigns.  

 As an Australian currently living in the UK, my opinion on the election outcome will not count for much, but the party nominees and the final candidate elected to become the next U.S President impacts indirectly the economics, politics and societies in Australia, UK and elsewhere.  For this I think that electing a candidate who will be in divisive and multilateral will be important for both the U.S and the rest of the world, especially at a time of global change. 

With my understanding of American politics leant from taking this subject during my undergraduate studies, reading about the current elections, and listening to expert analysis, it’s a safe bet that the spectacle of the Donald Trump show will fizzle out come convention time, and voters and delegates will choose a different Republican candidate. Which one I am not sure, but surly America and the rest of the world do not want another Bush to be Commander-in-Chief. So that realistically leaves Cruz and Rubio, and for me, Rubio seems the least divisive and the safest bet for the Republican nominee. 

As for the Democrats, with O’Malley gone, the chose has got easier. Clinton seems the most likely chance to win the nomination, although becoming the first women President, I am not sure. Her association with the establishment and resent scandals over private emails, along with it seems conservative public, it will be interesting if she can make it to the White House. As for Sanders, his socialist liberal ideology and policy pledges will not stand for much in a country with many who dislike socialism or socialist ideas. At 74, his age would surely be a factor in voters and delegates minds, even though so far he has gained much support from younger voters, with his free education pledges. But I think he will not be able to carry on this support or gain others as the campaign carries on. In the end, If I was legible to cast my vote I would elect Hillary Clinton regardless of the minor scandal, the name and the links with the establishment as the next and first women President of the United States of America, because she has experience on the international stage (former Secretary of State) and holding elected office (Senator for New York), and she will be the least divisive and have a multilateral approach on the national and international stage. 

     

U.S Naval Presence Increasing Tensions in the South China Sea

Over the last few weeks’ tensions between the People Republic of China and the United States has hit a new level in relations between the two superpowers. In the last week or so, the U.S has sent a naval destroyer USS Lassen within the Chinese claimed 12-mile exclusion zone of the Subi reef. 

The issue of contention with this act by the U.S and protest from the Chinese government is linked to the ongoing dispute over a number of small islands and reefs in the South China sea. China along with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Taiwan have been at loggerheads for many years and even decades over sovereignty of these islands and reefs. In recent years China have built man made islands and placed runways and other structures on them, claiming their right to do so, even though under international law these specks of land or reefs are in international waters.

A US State Department spokesmen John Kirby, has since the incident stated that the U.S navy was just exercising its rights of freedom of navigation in international water, as allowed under international law. The Chinese on the other hand viewed this as provocative and was not needed at such a time. I think that the action taken by the U.S maybe provocative and was seeking a reaction from the Chinese authorities, but was not in violation of international law or encroached the sovereignty of China. One U.S naval vessel passing by a group of man-made islands does not declare war or instigate increased tensions between the two superpowers, all that it seems to have done is show that the action of building artificial islands on undeclared reefs as provocative for a long term solution to the dispute.

With at times high tensions between a number of countries in the region all claiming territorial rights over many of the islands and reefs, with China having the largest claim, the ongoing dispute needs a solution found for the good of international peace and security. The waters in the South China sea are major trading routes with large amounts of ships passing these islands and reefs every day. So what needs to happen to prevent a major incident involving casualties is first, for China to halt the reclaiming and building of artificial islands and structures in the disputed area, and second, for all the countries involved to organise an international conference to find a compromise in regards to claims over the area. With the U.S stating that they will not back down, and will carry out further ‘rights to freedom of navigation’ in the South China sea, this could lead to military to military confrontation, if agreement over the islands and reefs are not found.                      

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

China needs to stop its Provocative Campaign in the East and South China Sea

Over the last couple of months there has been increasing tensions in the East China Sea between China, Japan, South Korea and the United States, along with  other countries in the region. The main issues are the growing rise of China as the new top dog in the region and a long standing dispute over a group of islands called Senkaku/Diaoyu which belong to Japan, but are claimed by a handful of other countries including China. Although the current crisis is over a tiny group of uninhabited islands that lay on top of gas and oil deposits, the main issue of concern not just to the region but also the international community is the rising power of China, who are on a campaign to flex its military and economic muscle.

The most recent example of China’s military and diplomatic flexing has been in the last few months, when they installed a Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the disputed islands, and which overlaps Japan’s own ADIZ. This action by China requires all commercial and military aircraft to identify themselves with Chinese authorities when passing through this zone, but the US, Japan and other countries have rejected these requests and have conducted military flights in the area. Not much has been mentioned in recent weeks concerning the ADZ, and no reports of incidents over the matter.

Apart from the ADZ issue, the US and China navy ships have come close to colliding with each other in the South China Sea, near another group of disputed islands. Both countries have released statements blaming the other for the near miss, with the US saying that the Chinese ship was being aggressive towards their vessel which was in international water and the Chinese stating that the US ship was harassing the new Chinese aircraft carrier, as it was carrying out exercises. 

 On the matter of the dispute in the East China Sea, my understanding is that the Senkaku islands are a sovereign territory of Japan, as they were owned by a Japanese family for many centuries, and have recently been transferred to the Japanese state. I am not a lawyer, but one would think that international law would under this argument grant full sovereignty to Japan. Except no international organisation or country wants to deliberate on sovereignty rights, so this issue will drag on into the future.

The US has been dragged into the crisis, though quite willingly on the side of Japan, as they are allies, and also they want to keep a check on China’s new aggressive stance in the region. The US since the end of the second world war have been the main military force protecting its own national interests and its allies in the region, but since the rising economic and military power of China over the last couple of decades, the US has seen its status as the regions and even the worlds only superpower decline. China at the present acknowledge this change in the status que and have been taking advantage of a weaker US role in Asia and the rest of the world, but continuing in a campaign  of  provocative action against its neighbors will not advance stability in the region or win international support.

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

North Korea open for talks

Early last month I wrote a post on the escalating crisis on the Korean Peninsula,where North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un was destabilizing regional peace and security with rhetorical threats of invasion of the South and destruction of the United States presence in Asia. For more than a month, he was carrying out these threats by isolating the Communist regime further from the international community, by cutting communication links with the South and just being all out antagonistic towards the US and the rest of the world.

As I argued in my last post concerning the most recent crisis, these actions by the North Koreans is just another one in the line of many that have happened over the last few decades. Every time the Communist regime feels under pressure or scrutiny from the outside world, the leaders looked to release their own personal tension by defying calls for nuclear disarmament with testing of its nuclear capabilities. I cannot even count with all my fingers, how many times North Korea has gone down this path, with the status quo still intact.

So it seems my predictions were correct in the past few months. North Korea seems to be crumbling on the inside, as by one minute they are antagonizing the US and threatening the South, and the next minute, wanting to make peace. Small dog syndrome for attracting attention perhaps?  

Last week, the North Koreans, indicated that they are willing to reopen the Kaesong industrial park and reconnect communication lines with the South. To me, this indicates that the Communist regime and its leaders are in a desperate situation. On the one hand they feel threatened by the outside world and its capitalist ideology, but on the other their continuing self isolation is going to bring further hardship to its people, who surely are not going to sit back now and let the regime destroy their future. 

Will the U.S Secretary of State Restart the Middle East Peace Process?

(Image source: WikiCommons | Credit to: US Department of State)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry holds a meeting with the Arab League delegation, led by Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, at the Blair House in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2013.

The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has held a meeting this week with Arab League members, to discuss the restarting of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. 

Ever since the Israeli nation was formed in 1948, there has been on and off conflict between the Jewish state and the people of Palestine, leading to a number of major wars which have dragged other Arab nations into the dispute. Much of the issues concerning the conflict are on matters of religious differences, as Israel is Jewish and the Palestinians are Muslim. Also, land and natural resources have played a major part in fueling the distrust of both sides. Israel are unwilling to give up land that was taken away from the Palestinians in the 1967 war, arguing security concerns, and elements within the power circles of the Palestinian  community, want all of the Jewish lands returned to the Muslim peoples.  

The international communities, and more specifically the U.S, have over the last few decades been the third wheel in the process to bring peace to the unstable region. The last major attempt to bring long lasting peace was back in the late 1990’s, under the Oslo Accord, when President Bill Clinton almost negotiated an agreeable road map between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman  Yasar Arafat and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, however, many of the Accords principles, including ‘two state’ solution have not full progressed. Although, a Palestinian Authority (PA) was formed to allow the Palestinians limited self governance, many of the issues discussed in the Accords are still to be fully implemented.

Since the Oslo Accords no major attempts to bring an agreed solution to the conflict have aspired, as the U.S have concentrated their resources fighting the decade long ‘war on terror,’ and both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to overcome many domestic issues, which have stalled the peace process.

The attempt this week by John Kerry to meet with foreign ministers from Arab nations in the region, seems to me, emphasises the importance that these Arab states have in bringing both Israel and especially the divided Palestinians to restart concrete negotiations on a workable solution. I think this is a good first step by the new US Secretary of State to consult with regional leaders, rather than going straight to the Palestinians or Israelis. What needs to happen after this weeks meeting, is for Arab states to work in partnership with the US on bring both Hamas and Fatah to agree on working together to negotiate peace. If this situation can aspire, where both Hamas and Fatah can share governance over Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is more likely going to agree to negotiate a solution for peace. 

Should International Sanctions on Burma be lifted?

Image source: WikiCommons Credit to: Htoo Tay Zar

On Monday the European Union (EU) lifted its economic sanctions on Burma (Myanmar), although an arms embargo is still in place. This act comes inline with other international institutions and states that have over the last year or so lifted their own sanctions on Burma. For instance, last year the United States, suspended some sanctions and relaxed trade restrictions between both countries. Much of these sanctions have been in place for a number of decades, ever since Burma has been under military rule. During this time, the Burmese people suffered under the sanctions, which prevented any direct foreign investment and trade with the international community, and slowed economic development.

Since 2011, the military junta has been on a campaign of economic, political and social reforms, culminating in the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been under house arrest for almost 19 years. On top of Suu Kyi’s release, the military generals progressed with a new constitution, allowing for the first time, opposition groups to hold seats in parliament. Even though, the military still hold over half the seats and govern over state affairs, Aung San Suu  Kyi  has become a member of parliament and has a voice in national decision making.

I agree with the lifting of some of the economic sanctions by the international community, but I am a little sceptical of the future intentions of the military junta in Burma. Foreign placed sanctions on countries over a long period, such as the one in Burma, has some short term effects to pressuring regimes to reform and tackle issues of human rights, but in the long term, the sanctions can bring further misery on the people, not the authorities which the sanctions target. On my second point, the Burmese government have began showing signs that they will begin a process of reform, but I do think that the international community needs to be vigilant in how much leeway to give to  the Burmese government in regards to carrying out the planned reforms. Before more international institutions or countries start lifting sanctions on Burma, further reforms, especially in regards to human rights abuses needs to be actively addressed.

Will gun control ever be achieved in the U.S?

U.S. President Barak Obama gets emotion as he address the nation on the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting
(Image source: Wiki Commons, credit to: Lawrence Jackson) 

Since last December's mass shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, President Obama has been on a campaign to bring tougher laws into universal gun controls. 

The main obstacles to his plans have been a number of Republican Congressmen and women, and members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who argue, that they will not support any legislation which contravenes their constitutional right to bear arms.

Obama’s plans are for universal background checks, a ban on automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition cartridges. The problem that the President has is although 90 percent of the population support the need for tougher laws on gun controls, many Republicans in Congress, will only support universal background checks, as to prevent criminals and the mentally ill accessing a weapon. Republican Senators have come out this week and stated that they will try every political trick available, including filibusting the legislation, meaning it will need 60 percent approval rather then a simple majority vote.

I think, if 90 percent of Americans who have cherished the right to bear arms for over 300 years, but are now willing to compromise for the shake of preventing any more mass killings because of ideas of liberty, the U.S should not call itself a democracy. I do not understand the argument of the few who fear losing the right to bear arms, it is not like they will not be able to own a gun, all that Obama is proposing is for eliminating weapons that can kill many innocent men, women and children in one short moment.  

In Australia and other parts of the world, governments have legislated into law tough gun controls similar to the proposed ones in the US, which of course have not fully eliminated the use of guns in crimes, but have prevented mass killings on almost monthly bases as seen in the US. I hope in the end Obamas campaign, with the support of majority of the nation will be able to persuade the reluctant few to say yay on the floor of Congress.

North Korea is playing dangerous games

Over the last few weeks North Korea has been playing dangerous power politics with the international community, especially with South Korea (ROK) and the United States (US). Pyongyang has been releasing statements declaring renewed hostilities against the South. North Korea has back up their verbal rhetoric with a buildup of military forces along the border with South Korea and threats to strike at US military bases in the region.

In the past few days, North Korean authorities have further increased tensions with the South by closing the border to South Koreans who are working at the joint Kaesong industrial facilities just inside North Korean territory. About 50,000 North Korean workers and a few hundred South Koreans managers work at this facility, that was set up to foster better relations between the two nations, and to allow the manufacture of cheaper South Korean goods.

These incidents show the same old rhetorics and threats that seem to occur every time there are joint ROK-US military exercises and/or new sanctions placed on the regime, although on this occasion North Korea has stepped up its rhetoric by actively threatening to attack both the US and cross the border into the South. 

Pyongyang have declared a ‘state of war,’ by actively cutting of communications with the officials in the South and amassing troops on the border  the North would be unwise to further the tensions with South Korea and the US, an active conflict would not benefit both the regime and the people of North Korea. 

It seems to me that Kim Jong-un, who has only been in power for less than 15 months, is trying to show the rest of the world and his fellow countrymen  that North Korea are not threatened by the US and its allies and have the will and capability to defend its territory. 

I think that the actions of Kim Jong-un is just verbal rhetoric, even a protest against new sanctions placed on the regime after last year's Nuclear tests and the annual joint military exercise just taken place on their doorstep. It's another case of North Korea barking louder, but a bite is unlikely.

The Iraq War was a waste of money and lives

This week a final report was released by the United States (US) inspector general for Iraq reconstruction concluding that the billions spent on trying to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies was a waste of money and did not achieve much.

The eight years of occupation cost the US over $800 billion dollars in stationing hundreds of thousands of troops and reconstructing Iraq. On top of the economic expenditure, around 5000 American troops died, along with thousands more of Iraqis casualties.

The study was carried out as an audit on the overall expenditure by the US in this conflict over the eight years. The finding of the audit concluded that billions of dollars were wasted to corruption in both Iraq and the US and insufficient security, the money provided to rebuild Iraq was misused and did not accomplish the aim of improving the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq war had been a failure from the beginning for both American foreign policy and the future stability of Iraq and the entire region. Up until the invasion in early 2003, Saddam managed to stabilize Iraq and kept control of any ethnic or religious tensions, even if he had committed crimes against human rights. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted from power, but I think it was an incorrect policy decision and strategy to firstly invade Iraq at a time were resources were required in Afghanistan and to remove all authority from power, including the dismissal of the police and military. 

The argument set by Bush and his administration, that Saddam and Iraq were linked to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was a misjudgement  The chemical and biological weapons that the US and other nations argued that Iraq possessed and were going to use to  attack its neighbours further were lies. All that seems to have been achieved by the war and the occupation was to fuel religious and ethnic tensions and further destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Let’s hope this report on the cost of the war and reconstruction, along with the other inquiries conducted by the US and its allies will offer lesions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and any other future decisions will assist governments to make better decisions in the future.