World Politics

History was made on the 27th of April 2018. The term is thrown around without a second thought nowadays but what happened today will enter the annals of history. Two Korean leaders, North’s Kim Jong-un and South’s Moon Jae-in, have agreed to the following key points:

• End active hostilities between two nations
• Connecting and modernising railways and roads across the border
• Reunion of families that became divided after the war

Important statement of intent was made and initial groundwork for economic cooperation was laid. The emotional aspect, perhaps the most important and delicate of all, was also ticked emphatically. How do you overcome decades of fear and hatred? By endorphin overdose. Most of important of which was stated desire to work towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula.

What is the geopolitical meaning? Could this lead to reunification?

Kim played a blinder with a very weak hand. It is my belief that he needed a pretext and he has made up his mind some time ago for this step to take place. He understand the needs of his country well and he sees immense potential in the reunification. First of all for himself. By this I do not mean some economic gain. No. Like all power crazed or power hungry, he wants to be remembered by history textbooks. This is a tectonic step towards that goal. Secondly, his popularity in North Korea would skyrocket. He didn’t bend the knee, showed spunk and shook hands with Moon Jae-in as an equal. This is important for the home audience to avoid any lingering bitterness after decades long stand-off. He could not have done it alone. It was almost by a whim of fate that we got the right players at the right time in the right place. Moon Jae-in is another on a cusp of history. He was widely criticised for his pro North Korean stance during his election campaign. He afforded himself to make comments like: “I’m pro-U.S., but now South Korea should adopt diplomacy in which it can discuss a U.S. request and say no to the Americans.” He is not just any typical Asian head of state under the US security umbrella. He’s fearless, thinks outside the box, sees things his way and prepared to act upon it. Where could this rapprochement lead? To the creation of a Super Korean Dragon. Economic power and global connections of the South Korea coupled with North’s military muscle and well educated, hungry for success and opportunity populace. The appearance of an economically strong, tough and independent player in the region. Another inevitable step towards the new balance of power: a multi-polar world.

A couple of passing notes on other geopolitical players is noteworthy. After all, the four way talks involving US (patron of SK) and China (Defender of the North) were agreed and would at some point get under way.

US: President Trump was the catalyst behind this historic episode. The ingredients were right, as described above, but lacked that spark and he provided it. He was bombastic and brinkmanship like when it didn’t matter and showed great reserve when it mattered. He ridiculed and professed love. This is a standard behaviour of someone who revels in chaos and there is a method to his madness. He met a soul mate in Kim. They understood each other without speaking. Trump’s greatest act in this drama was to simply let it happen. It didn’t happen under Obama or any other more desirable predecessor, it happened under a man who was supposed to destroy the world and still causes sleepless nights for the pc cohorts. All I can say: Bravo, Mr President. You certainly are a deal maker!

China: The Chinese used the situation to win a few brownie points with Trump. They detest the man but for the Chinese it is all about an economy – the guarantor of their power and independence. They enjoy a huge trade surplus (2017: mind-boggling $375bn) with US and would like at least keep that trajectory of travel. The thinking in Beijing goes as follows: we aid you with the local L’Enfant terrible but you go easy on us when it comes to trade tariffs and barriers. This might not work and the effect could be negligible but the Chinese, just like the Germans, have no choice. There is a disbalance that needs to be addressed and there is a golden haired child determined to address it.

Kim, meanwhile powered on regardless: “We are brothers and one nation”. Wise words by a man, who was perennially ridiculed by the short-sighted media and small time politicians.

 

Chemical weapons are back in the headlines. First, we had witnessed a curious case of Mr Skripal and his daughter getting attacked with military grade nerve gas in the sleepy town of Salisbury and then, just this week, there was a claim of a chemical attack in the rebel held town of Douma. Let’s have a brief but detailed look at each.

The case of Mr Skripal is shrouded in Conan Doylesque mystery. We had everything: 1% survival rate claims, members of the public and police getting affected, numerous claims and counterclaims. Boris assuring the public and its allies that the nerve gas was Russian made only for the Porton Down scientist Gary Aitkenhead to repudiate it emphatically. Labour renegade right-wing MPs trying to use the incident to take down their pragmatic leader Jeremy Corbyn who dared to ask questions, who dared to ask for evidence (which was not there). Then came the recorded phone call Yulia had made to her cousin in Russia which surprisingly revealed that both mortally poisoned, according to UK government, Russian citizens are actually rapidly getting better and are due to be released soon. Fake news! – screamed the unbiased mass media. It cannot be verified, pronounced detractors. For the first time, I had noticed doubt in the eyes of Sky News presenters and it was a rare sight to behold indeed. Yulia has promptly left the hospital shortly afterwards, in an implicit confirmation of the authenticity of the phone call, only to be driven to an unknown but secure location. Russia has accused Britain of detaining its citizens and holding them under duress. Of course, we do not know any facts. We still haven’t even seen the victims. The victims that, as we know now, can speak and communicate. Instead we got a suspicious public statement, purportedly by Yulia, full of officialese as pointed out by former British Ambassador Craig Murray. He would know and seems to concur that major obfuscation is taking place. This begs the question: WHY? Some pertinent observations are there: why haven’t we got a public, real-time coverage of the incident, as we’ve had with Mr Litvinenko, whose father blames British Secret Services for his murder? Well, we know why now. The patients were doing much better than the official version led us to believe. Claims that it had to be Russians, because of prior precedent, do not stack up either. If Russia tried to publicly execute Mr Skripal to deter any future defections then surely that aim was already accomplished in 2008 with the public execution of Mr Litvinenko? Or does Russia need to remind potential defectors and double agents every other 10 years of their capabilities? It doesn’t make any sense. Yet, it was enough for PM May to expel a horde of Russian diplomats and persuade its NATO allies to follow suit. Overall, around 30 countries, including Moldova and Montenegro, out of 193 countries in the world, did exactly that in what can be seen as a remarkable, diplomatic tour de force.

Then we had the chemical attack in Douma. Only Russia says there wasn’t. Who to believe: White Helmets or the Russians? Perhaps we should try to listen to our common sense and logic instead. Asad has won the war, he is just tidying up now. President Trump has announced earlier this week that he’s pulling out of Syria. ISIS has been defeated. Where is his Thank You? he asked. But Asad, having won the war and having surrounded the city of Douma, having negotiated the rebel surrender and their safe passage out of the encircled city, decided to use chemical weapons anyway. Most would have thought that he got rid of them in 2013 under strict OCPW supervision but no, he must have left a few barrels in his personal cellar. He must have some serious death wish and no, it is not a movie. Straightaway, Asad was branded as gas killing animal and Russia as his accomplice. As of this moment, US, UK and France are preparing a military response which would, highly likely, involve strikes by new, shiny and smart missiles. Russia promised to shoot down any approaching missiles and their launchpads if any Russian personnel was hurt. Given that Russian soldiers and military advisers can be found pretty much at every Syrian base, there is a high degree of probability that certain mishaps are unavoidable. Just like that we are potentially on the brink of a massive escalation and direct confrontation between Russia and US. Even Tony Blair has emerged from unseen depths, like mythical Jormungandr, to demand blood. Surely, a first sign of Ragnarok?

We live in dangerous times. We no longer require evidence to accuse. There is a clear attempt to make Russia a pariah and rogue state that is guilty of every sin known to man. This is state-sponsored Russophobia and extremely dangerous and short-sighted in nature. Once the Russian establishment fully absorbs the fact that they have been cast in a role of a perennial villain then their attitudes and actions would markedly change for the worse. Competition is one thing, but when nations, claiming to be exceptional, go out of their way to hinder the development of other countries then some sort of military action to resolve the dispute is inevitable and we know what this means. This is not the case of: we are the West, and unless you adhere to our values and standards then you would never be allowed into our gentleman’s club. This is the case of, we would not allow you in and moreover we would do our best to sabotage other gentlemen’s clubs that might arise due to limited access to the former. The times are different and countries like Russia, China, India and quite a few others, in a not so distant future, would demand to be involved in the process of rule-making and not just rule-taking. This is already visible in the defence and arms exports sectors, where big buyers demand that helicopters, tanks and other military hardware is assembled locally. This is just one trend. Others will follow. The current model that the West, and US more specifically, has on the table is no longer appealing to the rising powers and they are prepared to show their teeth. It is in the interests of the West, to open up and show a more sober and fair approach, while we are still ahead and have the competitive advantage.

As the scandal over the suspected poisoning of Mr Skripal, KGB double agent, gathers pace it is important to take a pause and reflect on causes and effects of the proceedings.

Watching PM Theresa May and Foreign Secretary take turns painting Russia as the Beast from the East and comparing the incoming World Cup in Russia as being akin to 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany left a very bitter taste. These comparisons and overall approach are not worthy of UK diplomatic service and tradition. It is borderline amateur and criminal. But what do we expect from the incompetent lightweights that populate both sides of the chamber in Westminster? With one exception. Corbyn’s reaction was one of a true statesman who tends to find himself on the right side of history most of the time. It was also curious to see a somewhat lukewarm support from the US and the EU. Both Trump and Juncker have congratulated Putin on his re-election. US president did so against fierce opposition from his own staff. Yes, there were words of solidarity but not much in terms of real action. Not all, of course. Baltic countries and Poland are always first in line when it comes to Russia bashing. After all, they find themselves on the edge of the abyss that is modern day Russia. Do they do it because they love UK? I doubt it. They do it because they have an inherent hatred of Russia (see chequered history between all involved) and because they like the political points they score by placing themselves in the avant-garde of neoliberal and democratic  movement. How do they reconcile these endeavours with recent covert attempts to control state media and courts, God only knows but I digress. I draw the attention of my readers to two outstanding articles that shed much needed light on the issue.

One by prominent blogger and writer Peter Hitchens on why the expansion on NATO imperilled the security of Europe and not made it stronger:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/02/lemmings-nato-the-russian-threat-and-the-merchants-of-death-.html

It is a very powerful piece that dissects the issue with logic and common sense. And if Mr Hitchens is somewhat of an unknown quantity to you, then I draw your attention to an article that he mentions in his piece, which concerns the supposed Father of the Cold War, George Kennan. My Kennan makes the same point in this excerpt from the article (full article available here http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html) :

”And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia,” said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ”It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”

Having read both or even one, do you still think that it is Russia that is being the aggressor? In alternative universe somewhere, Russia and Europe (with US) have created an economic & security zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, as was envisaged by the maitre of French state and politics Charles De Gaulle. The future where misspent defence billions are rightfully spent on education, health and science. Alas, not in our universe. The mind-numbing and self-induced struggle for glory of unknown quality continues.

 

In the run-up and post Brexit, we have heard quite a bit about a fantasy called European Unity. It is fashionable to talk about European unity and paint UK’ decision to leave as an act of betrayal. Was it? The situation requires a different perspective. Whenever I hear about European unity my mind is immediately cast back to January 2003. That was the day the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, smirking, sliced up European continent in two. He dubbed them, Old and New Europe. France and Germany constituted Old Europe – “unimportant” half and countries of former Warsaw Pact as New Europe – the bright future of Europe. The setting of these unprecedented events and statements was the looming Iraq War. Instead of backing anti-war coalition of Germany, France and Russia (who were proved to be right), the New Europe ostentatiously sided with pro-war US (who proved to be catastrophically wrong). Whether they were emphatically persuaded by the Secretary of State Colin Powell waving a vial containing WMDs remains a matter of  scholarly debate. What is clear, just like certain British PM (who shed crocodile tears more than a decade later) they were with Dubya and US – no matter what. Thus begs a question, what about European Unity? Why did they not side with European grandees, French President Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder, people with the same European values and who have done so much to facilitate their EU accession? Realpolitik on the table, unity in the bin.

European Commission President at the time Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates (countries applying for EU membership or those with set dates of joining EU) because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union. Around the same time, I morphed from being a pro-EU dove into a staunchly anti-EU hawk. The realisation had come, that this project was a giant on clay feet serving vested interests and that it would be eventually toppled when interests prevail over values and unity. Once EU membership and funds were in the bag, what’s next? A sensible question to some but this transactional approach to EU project would eventually prove to be the downfall of EU itself.

New Europe, Poland in particular, would always look after their own interests and do things in accordance with those needs. March in line and sing the song to be accepted into EU and start receiving billions in funds? No problem. It is a win win. Unhappy and dissatisfied citizens get to travel and move permanently wherever they want – this is what happened in the UK where over 1m Poles have arrived since 2004 – and vote accordingly to keep those rights. The elites, that motley crew of career politicians and businessmen, get to lace their hands with EU silver. Corruption on the 3rd world scale proliferated. For an example, I draw the attention of my readers to the construction of Southern Bridge in the capital of Latvia, Riga. This is the excerpt from Wikipedia:

The bridge was constructed between 2004 and 2008, and was opened on November 17, 2008. Construction of the access roads lasted until 2013. The government control commission in the report for January 2002 to September 2008 showed that, during that period, costs increased fivefold – from a planned 108.84 million lats to 570.14 million lats. The third and final stage of construction was halted due to lack of funding, but was finished in 2013.

When I visited Latvia, the taxi driver left me in no doubt as to who benefited from the delays and the five-fold increase in costs. The project has become a national joke. There are hundreds of similar projects in Eastern Europe. Delayed and with increasing costs. As recently as March 2018, Latvian rep at the ECB was arrested on bribery charges. Do we really think it is an isolated incident? No, this is the actual reality. Can they be blamed for it? As I have said before, no. They are doing what is right for their countries and any voting citizen would tell you that it is the right thing to do. Not the bribery, of course. But if that is the case, let us not pretend that European Unity exists. We see it even now, in Poland and Hungary, where conservative right-wing parties are looking to solidify control over independent media and courts in direct opposition to officially espoused European values. They are being threatened with sanctions but to no avail. They might be persuaded to back down for now but the undercurrent is there. The old adage still stands: interests over principles. There was no clear demonstration of this truth than 2003 and 2016.