US President Trump has repeated a story about US General Pershing in the US-Philippines War (the second part of the Spanish-American War which started in 1898). After the defeat of the Spanish in the Philippines, the US took control of the archipelago. There was fierce resistance from many Filipinos who had hoped for independence and there was an initial phase of the US-Philippines war in which the US put down the “rebellion”. Filipinos had declared their independence on 12 June 1898 but the US did not recognize it as an independent state. The leader of the new republic was Emilio Aguinaldo and he waged a guerrilla war against the Americans which end on 23 March 1901 after the US captured Aguinaldo. The second part of the US-Philippines war lasted from 1901-1913 when Muslims in the southern part of the Philippines resisted American control in what the US calls the Moro Rebellion. It is in this phase that General Pershing took control.
President Trump has asserted that Pershing dipped bullets in pigs blood and executed Muslim prisoners with these bullets. Contact with pigs is forbidden to Muslims and President Trump asserted that Pershing’s tactics effectively ended the rebellion. The story is categorically false and there is no evidence that Pershing ever engaged in such a horrific tactic. There is little question that the repression of the Moros was brutal and conducted by many American soldiers whose only experience was in repressing the Native American peoples in horrific ways. But President Trump’s story is false. Moreover, it is deeply troubling to hear an American President endorse the execution of prisoners of war, an unquestioned war crime.
Pershing in 1903
Venezuela’s newly elected Constituent Assembly has taken over the powers reserved for the elected Congress. The move effectively puts President Maduro in control of all three branches of government and he is free to rule as a complete dictator with no legal opposition. Maduro has thus finalized his coup d’etat and there is no peaceful or civil mechanism to check his power. The situation in Venezuela is dire with desperate shortages of food and medicine. It is very difficult to see a way out for the Venezuelan people other than an open rebellion, either violent or non-violent.
The US-North Korean stand-off seems to have relaxed a bit, but the US and South Korea are scheduled to begin their annual military exercise on Monday. These exercises have always been a serious bone of contention and the North Koreans invariably respond in some way to their perceived threat. It is difficult to see negotiations between the US and North Korea anytime soon, but the parameters of such negotiations are well-articulated by Lee Jong-Wha. The necessary element for productive talks is a promise by the US that it is committed to the denuclearization of the entire Korean peninsula and that China need not be concerned about a possible change in regime in North Korea.
Alex Chow, Nathan Law, and Joshua Wong, three of the young leaders of Hong Kong’s “Umbrella” protest movement in September 2014, were sentenced to jail for their part in inciting an “illegal assembly”. They had been convicted earlier for their participation, but the Hong Kong court did not impose imprisonment. That decision was regarded as “too lenient” by the chief prosecutor and he ordered imprisonment. The Umbrella Movement was a protest against the intervention of the central government in Beijing in the affairs of Hong Kong. Although Hong Kong is part of China, certain freedoms were guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong for 50 years after the British turned over the city to China in 1997 under the principle of “one country, two systems“.
The Three Leaders: Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow
The stand-off between India and China over the Doklam region continues and seems to be getting perilously close to open conflict. The tension has been aggravated over the last few months because of disagreements between the two on China’s “One Belt, One Road” program which India regards as intrusive on Indian economic and strategic interests, over India’s support for the Dalai Lama, and China’s refusal to allow India to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Apparently Chinese and Indian patrols all along the very extensive shared border have been exchanging blows with each other.
John Davison has written an interesting article for Reuterswhich I have not been able to confirm in other media sources but which rings of an unsettling truth. Davison writes that the US military forces will likely stay in northern Syria for many years. The US is building military bases in the region and it is unlikely to simply leave them once built. But more importantly, even after Daesh (the Islamic State) is pushed out of the area, the region will still be unsettled as the Kurds, the Syrians, and the Turks sort out some arrangements for the future. Given all the blood that has been spilled in the region, all these groups believe that they have earned a say in controlling the territory and it is unlikely that they will agree.
“About eight-in-ten U.S. Muslims (82%) say they are either very (66%) or somewhat concerned (16%) about extremism committed in the name of Islam around the world, about the same as the share of the general public that feels this way (83%).”
The poll should put to rest the ignorant belief that Islam is not compatible with the American system. One hopes that these results would be broadly shared by the American media.
Every four years in September the Russian military conducts a massive military exercise code-named Zapad (“West”). Experts will be closely watching this year’s exercise since it is the first since the Russian annexation of Crimea and its infiltration of eastern Ukraine. Earlier Zapads had been used as a cover for real military actions by Russia in Georgia and in Ukraine, and many are concerned that this year’s exercise will be used to bring Russian pressure on Belarus. Belarus is a former Soviet Republic and is officially an ally of Russia, but it has tried to remain somewhat neutral in the frosty relations between Russia and the West. Given the recent very tense relations between Russia and NATO, the prospect of perhaps as many as 100,000 Russian soldiers actively engaged so close to NATO members is quite unnerving.
The Venezuelan government is pursuing legislation which would bar opposition candidates from running in elections if they were found to have participated in any of the violent anti-government protests earlier this year. It is also considering a new law that would punish people who express “hate or intolerance” with up to 25 years in prison. Elections are scheduled for October, but all the evidence suggests that the newly “elected” constituent assembly will allow any results that compromise the ability of the government to maintain its authoritarian control.
The US-North Korean dispute has a very strange twist. If a conflict were to break out over a perceived North Korean attack or threat to the American homeland, at least the initial phases of the conflict would likely be fought on South Korean soil. As US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was quoted as saying on NBC News:
“‘If there’s going to be a war to stop [Kim Jong Un], it will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here. And He (sic) [US President Donald Trump] has told me that to my face,’ Graham said.
“‘And that may be provocative, but not really. When you’re president of the United States, where does your allegiance lie? To the people of the United States,’ the senator said.”
The question is what voice does South Korea have on this matter? Is it true that the US could make a decision that leads to the death of millions of South Koreans without the active consent of the South Korean government? The answer is, apparently, yes. At the beginning of the Korean War (which has not officially ended since there never has been a peace treaty between North and South Korea), a decision was made to place operational control of both South Korean and American troops in South Korea in the hands of the US. At the time, these forces were operating under the authority of the United Nations, and many states participated under that authority (South Korea, the US, United Kingdom, Thailand, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Greece, France, Colombia, Belgium, South Africa, Belgium, and the Netherlands).
Subsequently, in 1978 a joint committee was formed, the Republic of Korea – United States Combined Forces Command (CFC). The Commander of the CFC is American and the Deputy Commander is South Korean. There was a decision made to transfer complete operational control of all South Korean forces to a single South Korean command no later than 2012, but that transfer has yet to be effectuated. So the US does have the theoretical ability to make a unilateral decision about the use of military force in South Korea.
“War must never break out again on the Korean Peninsula. Only the Republic of Korea can make the decision for military action on the Korean Peninsula. Without the consent of the Republic of Korea, no country can determine to take military action. The Government will do all it can to prevent a war from breaking out. No matter what twists and turns we undergo, the North Korean nuclear problem must be addressed in a peaceful manner. In this regard, my Administration`s position is not different from that of the U.S. Government.”
He went on to talk about the conditions for negotiations with North Korea:
“The resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue has to start with a nuclear freeze. When the North at least stops additional nuclear testing and missile provocations, the conditions for dialogue can be created. The purpose of enhanced sanctions and pressure against the North is not to heighten military tensions but to bring it back to the negotiating table. In this regard, the position of the Korean Government is not different from that of the U.S. Government.”
Filip Novokmet (Paris School of Economics), Thomas Piketty (Paris School of Economics), and Gabriel Zucman (UC Berkeley and NBER) have published a fascinating paper, “From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016″. The paper documents what many of us have believed but could never find the evidence to support the belief. The paper finds that ” Russian living standards were about 60-65% of the Western European average in 1989-1990, and reached about 70-75% by the mid-2010s.” In terms of income and wealth inequality, the authors found that the relative equality of both under the Soviet regime has changed substantially after the collapse of the Soviet regime in 1991 and that inequality in Russia is now roughly comparable to other rich countries. According to the abstract: ” According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.” Finally, the authors make an interesting political observation about the phenomenon in Russia today:
“In effect, extreme inequality seems acceptable in Russia, as long as billionaires and oligarchs appear to be loyal to the Russian state and perceived national interests. Whether this fragile equilibrium will persist in the coming years and decades remains to be seen.”
Happy Birthday, Pakistan!!! Seventy years ago the British ended its colonization of India and two new states emerged: India and Pakistan. The partition of the former colony into two new states was not an easy one. For some, the partition was a way to create a Muslim state called Pakistan on 14 August 1947 in order to give stability and order to those individuals who believed that the overwhelming Hindu composition of India could not be comfortable for Muslim citizens. So a great migration (the largest migration in human history–17 million people) occurred with huge numbers of people moving into what they believed to be a Muslim Pakistan or a Hindu India. Both states retain secular constitutions, although revisions to Pakistan’s constitution made during the rule of General Zia-ul Haq in the 1970s brought the laws into closer conformity with Islamic tradition.
Also, on this day in 1941 US President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on the USS Augusta just off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada. Together they drafted what came to be known as the Atlantic Charter which outlined the objectives of what would become an alliance against Nazi Germany. The British were locked in the Battle of Britain as the Germans tried to knock off the last liberal state in Europe, and the British were facing a possible defeat. The US had officially stayed out of the war (and would not enter it until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941) but Roosevelt was strongly in favor of supporting the British and entering the war. The Atlantic Charter was first to use the phrase “United Nations” which ultimately came into being in 1944.
On 13 August 1521, the capital of the Aztec Empire, Tenochtitlán, fell after a three-month siege by Hernán Cortés and his local allies, the Tlaxcaltec. The city was founded in 1325 CE and by 1502 it reached the height of power in central Mexico under the rule of Montezuma II. The Aztec Empire was sophisticated and complex, but ultimately it was unable to resist the military power of the Spanish which was underpinned by gunpowder. Subsequently, Bartolomé de Las Casas wrote many tracts on how the Spanish had destroyed the indigenous culture of Mexico, culminating in his Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies which was written in 1542 and published in 1552.
Artist Rendering of Tenochtitlán as It Might Have Appeared in 1521
Only a fool would try to predict the next steps in the US-North Korean crisis–both leaders are deliberately unpredictable and incredibly loose with their pronouncements. But we do have some sort of a timeline. North Korea has given 15 August as the day it will launch missiles toward the island of Guam. We do not know how close the missiles will land, what type of missiles they might be, and whether they will even be armed. The US and South Korea are also scheduled to hold joint military exercises on 21 August, and those activities are always considered highly provocative by North Korea. One point, however, is certain. The US and North Korea have fought before in the Korean War, 1950-53. That war ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, so the war has never officially ended. Bruce Cumings is the author of the authoritative book in the English language on the Korean War, and he has written a short essay on the current situation. North Korea is no stranger to the “fire and fury” of the US military.
I count the recent days in Charlottesville, Virginia as some of the saddest days of my life. White supremacists and neo-nazis have always been part of the American social and political fabric throughout my life, but they were always in the background, kept there by the vast majority of decent citizens who held their views abhorrent and repugnant. These groups apparently believe that they now have the backing of significant elements within the US political system and have decided that they can now emerge from the shadows. I do not doubt that they will be forced back, but I am overwhelmed by the knowledge that old battles have to be refought. There was, however, one photograph from the violence in Virginia that gave me great hope and inspiration. An African-American police officer was so committed to the ideals of the Constitution that he upheld the right of people to state their views, even though those views were personally destructive to him. That police officer is a person of great courage, dedication, and embodies the greatest aspirations of the America that I hope will someday be fully realized.
Some of the increased threat perception occurred in reliable US allies:
“Just in the past year, perceptions of the U.S. as a major threat have increased by at least 8 percentage points among several long-standing American allies, including Australia (13 points) and the UK (11 points). Concern about U.S. power is up 10 points in Canada, Germany and Sweden, and 8 points in France and the Netherlands.”
There is also a striking difference in the threat perceptions of women as opposed to men as the chart below indicates.
At least 24 people have died in post-election violence in Kenya. The official results gave Uhuru Kenyatta, the current President, 54.3% of the votes, but his opponent, Raila Odinga, called the election a charade. As of now, the violence does not seem to be as widespread as it was after a contested election in 2007, but the opposition party does not intend to contest the election in courts, believing that there could not be a fair trial. A lot now depends on whether Kenyatta can take action to alleviate the fears of his opponents.
Russian President Putin expelled 755 people associated with the US diplomatic staff in Russia in retaliation for the new sanctions imposed on his country by the US. Not all these individuals are Americans–they include support staff at the embassy and consulates who are Russian. But the expulsion of diplomats is a very serious matter. Yesterday, President Trump thanked Putin for the expulsions, explaining that the move would “save a lot of money”. It is impossible to describe what a slap in the face that comment was to the entire State Department. It is also hard to explain why a person who was entrusted to defend his citizens would thank anyone who just expressed great contempt for them.
Researchers have published a paper in the journal World Development that attempts to quantify the amount of money used to subsidize the production of fossil fuels. The subsidies come through various tax mechanisms and other government policies that create incentives to produce fossil fuels. The Guardian does a very good job ofoutlining the expansive definition of subsidies used by the researchers, many of which are totally hidden from the eyes of consumers of fossil fuels. The subsidies globally come to about $5.3 trillion in 2015 or about 6.5% of global GDP. According o the summary of the article:
“Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.”
If all these subsidies were taken into account, we could more accurately compare the costs of renewable energies which are often heavily subsidized as well.
US President Trump indicated that there is a “military option” among those available to the US with respect to the constitutional crisis in Venezuela. Presumably, the President believes that there may be an effective role for the American military in the event a civil war breaks out in Venezuela. What that option might be is beyond me. What intervening in Venezuela has to do with “America First” is also beyond me. An American intervention in a Latin American civil war would in all probability make the situation significantly worse. If there is a humanitarian crisis and civilians need to be evacuated, there are other regional militaries that would be less intrusive.
A meeting between top military representatives from India and China to resolve the stand-off over the border dispute near Bhutan ended inconclusively. India is sending more troops along its entire eastern border. According to the Times of India:
“The Army has steadily but stealthily moved troops to their “operational alert areas” on the borders with China in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, while also maintaining high operational readiness of its other formations and units all along the 4,057-km long Line of Actual Control stretching from Ladakh to Arunachal, as was reported by TOI earlier.”
In a move that I find inexplicable, the US has sent a destroyer (the USS John McCain–I kid you not) into the South China Sea within the 12-mile limit of a Chinese facility near Mischief Reef (again, I kid you not). This is the third time the Trump Administration has tested the right of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, and the US has international law on its side. But testing the Chinese at a time when the US is complaining that China is not doing enough to restrain the North Korean nuclear program makes no sense at all. Moreover, the US move comes at a time when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has made the first tentative steps to reach an accommodation with China over the South China Sea (see the post of 6 August), a move that makes even less sense. China seems to be losing patience with both the US and North Korea, but it is clearly biased in favor of no changes in the status quo on the Korean peninsula. An editorial in Global Times, often a conduit for the official Communist Party position makes this position clearly:
“Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China’s interests, China will respond with a firm hand.
“China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”
Note the conditions concerning US and South Korean actions: 1) carry out strikes; 2) try to overthrow the North Korean regime; and 3) change the political pattern of the Korean peninsula. There appears to be a degree of ambiguity about what the Chinese will and will not permit.
38 North is a website devoted to information about North Korea (its title refers to the 38th parallel–the boundary established between North and South Korea). It is a publication of the US-Korea Institute at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University and it is by far one of the most reliable sources of information about North Korea. One of its recent posts has to do with how the media translates Korean and often misses the nuances of the language. North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho gave a speech at the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the pertinent parts of his speech were translated in this way:
“We will, under no circumstances, put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table. Neither shall we flinch even an inch from the road to bolstering up the nuclear forces chosen by ourselves, unless the hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S. against the D.P.R.K. are fundamentally eliminated.”
38 North offers a different translation of that part of the speech which is far less categorical:
“Unless the hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S. against the D.P.R.K. are fundamentally eliminated, we, under no circumstances, will put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table and will not flinch even an inch away from our path of strengthening of the nuclear forces, which is chosen by ourselves.”
It is extraordinary that the differences are so stark. 38 North argues that the second translation is more consistent with previous statements made by North Korea. In diplomacy, intelligent statespeople will choose the interpretation that offers more opportunity for negotiation. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, US President Kennedy received two very different messages from Soviet leader Khrushchev. He chose to conduct the negotiations on the basis of the more benign message and Khrushchev did not object. The strategy actually earned a catchphrase: it was know as the “Trollope Ploy” after a “plot device by nineteenth-century British novelist Anthony Trollope, in which a woman interprets a casual romantic gesture, such as squeezing her hand, as a marriage proposal”.
Kenya held national elections on Tuesday, pitting the current President, Uhuru Kenyatta, against his opponent, Raila Odinga. The same candidates ran against each other in the election of 2013 which Kenyatta won despite being under indictment by the International Criminal Court for his role in the violence of an earlier election in 2007. May Alam, another Mount Holyoke alumna who has also become a noted analyst in international affairs, has written a superb background to the election, emphasizing the importance of the election to the country and the region. Initial results have given 54% of the vote to Kenyatta, but Odinga has claimed fraud. There are reports of sporadic violence in the country, but information has been spotty. This election is critical to the future of one of the most important countries in Africa and we should monitor events as they unfold.
Polling Station in Kenya
US President Trump and members of his administration have issued several statements about the North Korean nuclear weapons program. US intelligence has apparently determined that North Korea had developed the ability to miniaturize a nuclear bomb so that it could be fitted onto a intercontinental ballistic missile. This information, along with the two tests of ICBMs earlier this month, led President Trump to issue a warning to North Korea:
“‘He’—Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader—’has been very threatening beyond a normal statement,’ Trump went on. ‘And as I said, they will be met with the fire and fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before. Thank you.'”
This language is unusual in a crisis. Typically, leaders attempt to manage a crisis carefully and thus avoid language that could be perceived as inflammatory and contribute to an escalation of the crisis. Indeed, hours later, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued such a tempered message, as described by The Army Times:
“’What the president is doing is sending a strong message to North Korea in language that Kim Jong Un can understand, because he doesn’t seem to understand diplomatic language,’” Tillerson said. “’I think the president just wanted to be clear to the North Korean regime on the U.S. unquestionable ability to defend itself.’” He said the U.S. “’will defend itself and its allies.’
“The comments put Tillerson once again in the role of translating the president’s aggressive rhetoric into more diplomatic terms, and of working to minimize the chances of public panic. In fact, Tillerson argued that North Korea’s escalating threats indicated it was feeling the pressure from a successful U.S. strategy.”
“The United States and our allies have the demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack. Kim Jong Un should take heed of the United Nations Security Council’s unified voice, and statements from governments the world over, who agree the DPRK poses a threat to global security and stability. The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.
“President Trump was informed of the growing threat last December and on taking office his first orders to me emphasized the readiness of our ballistic missile defense and nuclear deterrent forces. While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth. The DPRK regime’s actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates.”
The rhetoric is not consistent. The inconsistency may be deliberate. There are those who believe that the Administration is following a “Madman Theory” of diplomacy, a reference to a ploy used by President Nixon in bargaining with North Vietnam during the peace negotiations. Nixon instructed his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, to warn the North Vietnamese that Nixon was “out of control” and might amplify the bombing of North Vietnam if progress was not made in the peace negotiations. Those threats also included a nuclear alert that was intended to send a message to the Soviet Union to stop supporting North Vietnamese intransigence.
If the Trump Administration is following the Madman Theory then it should also know that Nixon’s ploy failed. It failed because North Vietnam was more committed to its policy than the US was to its policy–North Vietnam was willing to suffer more damage than the US was willing–not capable, but willing–to inflict. Thus, the question is whether North Korea is more committed than the US is on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program.
The US could probably overthrow the North Korean regime if it decided to bring the full force of its military power to bear. I hesitate to accept that outcome as quickly as others appear to be. There is considerable evidence that regimes are far more durable than most Americans assume. It took time for the US to overthrow Hussein in Iraq in 2003, it has failed to overthrow Assad in Syria, it was unable to even find Osama bin Laden for almost 9 years. Military power failed to achieve objectives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba.
But the costs of that effort would be very high for American allies, particularly South Korea and Japan. The US is concerned that North Korea could potentially hit the American homeland with nuclear weapons at some point in the future; North Korea already has the ability to do so with South Korea and Japan. If the US attacked North Korea with its full might, then there is nothing that the US could do to stop an attack upon its allies. The missile defense systems already deployed in those countries are touted as eminently reliable. They have never been tested in combat and just one failure of those systems would be catastrophic. Moreover, North Korea would not even need to use nuclear weapons to attack South Korea. It has substantial conventional weaponry to inflict serious damage on the South Korean population. According to Secretary Mattis in an interview with Meet the Press:
“A conflict in North Korea, John, would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes. Why do I say this? The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on earth, which is the capital of South Korea.”
So the real question for the US is: how many non-American lives is it willing to sacrifice? The answer to that question is probably not very many unless North Korea struck first.
The other side of the calculation is how committed North Korea is to its nuclear program? Why does it refuse to even put the issue of its nuclear capabilities on the negotiating table?
There is little question that North Korea believes that nuclear weapons are its only defense against an American invasion. Most Americans do not take this matter seriously enough because few Americans believe that the US intends to overthrow the Kim Jong-un regime. However, analysts need to shed such preconceptions in order to understand the situation more clearly.
First, it is interesting that most Americans do not take the rhetoric of their government seriously. The rhetoric about North Korea has been unremittingly hostile since the onset of the Korean War in 1950. There is little to commend about the way North Korea is governed and its human rights abuses are despicable. But North Korea was not, until very recently, a strategic threat to the US. North Korea has witnessed the US overthrow of governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), the Dominican Republic (1961), and Cuba (1961) as well as numerous interventions in the internal affairs of other states such as the Congo in 1960 and Chile in 1973.
Second, North Korea refers to two historical examples of nations where the regime was overthrown by the US and attributes those overthrows to the absence of nuclear capabilities: Libya and Iraq.
Iraq was on the “axis of evil” along with Iran and North Korea. The phrase was coined by US President George W. Bush in 2002 after the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001. In March 2003, Iraq was invaded by the US ostensibly to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and the regime of Saddam Hussein was overthrown and he was subsequently hung. North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. The implication was clear: North Korea believed that if Iraq had had a nuclear capability, the US would not have invaded it. North Korea was not going to run the risk.
In December of 2003, Libya renounced its nuclear program, induced to do so by promises from Great Britain and the US that they would cease efforts to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddaffi. However, in 2011, amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring, the US and its NATO allies bombed Libya and targeted Gaddaffi’s locations with aerial bombardment. Ultimately, Gaddaffi was overthrown and murdered in the streets. Again, the North Koreans believed that Gaddaffi would not have been overthrown if he had had nuclear weapons.
We characterize North Korea as “irrational”. However, it has clearly chosen a very risky strategy that it believes is its only defense against an American invasion. And, so far, that strategy has worked.
On this day in 1995, Jerome John “Jerry” Garcia died. Peace out, Jerry.
World Politics News 