Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, June 15, 2018

Impose sanctions on Netanyahu for Gaza war crimes, says HRW


Palestinian youths face a fortified Israeli military position across the Gaza-Israel boundary, east of Khan Younis, during protests against the Israeli siege and for the right of return on 2 June.
Ashraf AmraAPA images

Ali Abunimah- 14 June 2018

Israeli leaders responsible for the killings of more than 100 Palestinian demonstrators in the occupied Gaza Strip since 30 March should face sanctions, Human Rights Watch says.
“The international community needs to rip up the old playbook where Israel investigates itself and the US blocks accountability with its UN Security Council veto,” Sarah Leah Whitson, the group’s Middle East director, states in a new report on Israel’s fatal shooting of more than 60 Palestinians in a single day on 14 May.
Whitson says the world must begin to “impose real costs” on Israel for its “blatant disregard for Palestinian lives.”
Those killed that day included seven children, one of them a 14-year-old girl, Wesal Khalil. Five were shot in the head or neck and two in the abdomen.
“Third countries should impose targeted sanctions against officials responsible for ongoing serious human rights violations,” Human Rights Watch states.
The rights group says that Israel’s lethal force against Gaza demonstrators “may amount to war crimes.”
Israeli officials named in the report as approving the shoot-to-kill-and-maim policy against people who “posed no imminent threat to life” include army chief Gadi Eizenkot, defense minister Avigdor Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Jamil Dakwar
✔@jdakwar

I believe it’s first time Human Rights Watch calls on third countries to impose targeted sanctions against Israeli officials responsible for serious human rights violations.

Omar Shakir
✔@OmarSShakir
Breaking: @hrw investigation finds that Gaza killings apparent war crimes. @AvigdorLiberman, @netanyahu sanctioned policy to fire on demonstrators who posed no imminent threat to life. Time for targeted sanctions against those implicated in serious abuses. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crimes-gaza …

View image on Twitter
9:39 AM - Jun 13, 2018
Separately, the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq published a list of public statements by Israeli leaders indicating intent to commit war crimes.
Human Rights Watch interviewed nine witnesses of the 14 May massacre, seven of whom were themselves shot by Israeli snipers in different locations along the Gaza-Israel boundary where Great March of Return protests were taking place.
Six of the witnesses said they were 200 to 300 meters from the two parallel fences Israel has built along the boundary when Israeli forces shot them with live ammunition.
“The victims include journalists, civil defense workers and volunteers trying to evacuate the wounded, and a child running away from the fences,” the report states.
Three other witnesses, including a 14-year-old boy, said they were shot when they were between 30 and 40 meters from the fences.

Injured man shot dead

In one harrowing incident, 23-year-old Samer Nasser said he was part of a group that had been throwing stones and trying to approach the barbed wire fence east of Jabaliya when someone near him was shot in the arm.
Nasser tried to evacuate the man in his “tuk tuk” – a three-wheeled motorized vehicle – when Israeli forces “started shooting heavily.”
“The injured man in my tuk tuk was shot again in the head and immediately died, and I was shot in the thigh,” Nasser said. “I was bleeding for 15 minutes, and had to crawl until I reached a woman who helped me.”
A video taken by another Gaza resident, Jamil Barakat, shows that woman sheltering behind a rock as she gestures to Nasser and encourages him to crawl towards her.
“We were luckily not shot, but we were unable to move forward or backward for half an hour because they opened fire at us,” Barakat, who was also taking shelter behind the rock, stated.
Meanwhile, Maher Harara, 48, from the Shujaiya neighborhood east of Gaza City, told Human Rights Watch that “he saw a woman’s finger shot off as she was making a victory sign” as she stood about 40 meters from the fences.
Harara was himself shot in the leg in the same area a few hours later.
“I was not holding anything, even my mobile phone was in my pocket, and I was standing by myself, but maybe they shot me because I was wearing black trousers and a black T-shirt so they thought I was a leader, but I wasn’t,” he said.

No justification

While Human Rights Watch cites one instance in which four armed men fired at Israeli forces in northern Gaza on 14 May, it notes that the vast majority of protesters were unarmed.
The Israeli military admitted on that day that “Our troops have not taken any sustained direct fire,” and that no one from Gaza had succeeded in crossing the boundary fences.
One witness told Human Rights Watch he was “aware of a person who had joined the 14 May protests while carrying a firearm, but apparently did not fire it because members of Hamas warned him that doing so could prompt Israeli soldiers to target the area.”
Israel claims that its rampant use of live ammunition that has wounded around 3,900 people, causing many grave and life-changing injuries and compounding a medical catastrophe, is necessary for self-defense.
“The use of live ammunition cannot be justified by automatically deeming every Palestinian who attempts to breach the fences to be an imminent threat to life,” Human Rights Watch says, emphasizing the many instances of victims being shot far from the fences.
The group also responds to Israel’s efforts to justify the 14 May massacre after the fact by claiming that 50 of those killed were members of Hamas.
“Hamas’ encouragement of and support for the protests and the participation of Hamas members in the protests do not justify the use of live ammunition against protesters who posed no threat to life,” Human Rights Watch states.
The group urges International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to open a formal investigation into violations against Palestinians that could lead to Israeli leaders being indicted and tried.

US, Israel isolated at UN

Human Rights Watch’s report was released on the day the UN General Assembly met to vote on a resolution deploring “any excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians,” as well as the use of live ammunition against protesters, children, medical personnel and journalists.
The text is similar to a draft that the US vetoed in the Security Council earlier this month.
Despite intense opposition from the United States and Israel, the General Assembly resolution passed 120-8 with 45 abstentions.

The resolution also “deplores the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian areas” – a rare occurrence – but did not name Hamas or any other groups deemed responsible.
The US had tried to insert an amendment condemning Hamas, but it was rejected.
The resolution that passed calls for no specific consequences to hold Israel accountable, merely asking the UN secretary-general to present proposals on an “international protection mechanism” for Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation.
Al-Haq الحق@alhaq_org
adopts resolution on Protection of the Palestinian civilian population with vote of 120 countries in favour; 8 against; and 45 abstentions http://undocs.org/en/A/ES-10/L.23 
7:44 PM - Jun 13, 2018
Despite the resolution’s toothlessness, the vote was nonetheless another signal of US and Israeli isolation. The only countries joining the pair in voting against the resolution were Togo, Australia and tiny island states and dependencies Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands.
Notably, European Union countries were split between the 12 that voted for the resolution and the 16 that abstained.
France, Belgium and Ireland backed the resolution, while Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were among the abstainers.
Yet even the yes votes from EU states amount to lip service, given the deep and extensive European complicityin Israel’s regime of occupation, settlement and apartheid.
The same day as the UN vote, for instance, a coalition of organizations published a report highlighting the role of three French companies, including a subsidiary of the state-owned railway, in the construction and operation of Israel’s light rail to link its settlements in and around occupied East Jerusalem in violation of international law.
Canada, where the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has continued the staunchly pro-Israel policies of its Conservative predecessor, also abstained.
Earlier Canada had voted for the failed US amendment aimed at shifting blame towards the Palestinians.
Posted by at

How bulldozers, Bedouin and ethnic cleansing herald the death of the two-state solution


Bedouin villagers of Khan al-Ahmar fear their long-threatened West Bank community may be demolished within days


Peter Oborne's picture
Peter Oborne
Friday 15 June 2018

KHAN AL-AHMAR, Occupied West Bank - It takes barely 30 minutes to drive from Jerusalem to the doomed Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, situated on the main road to Jericho on the West Bank.
But there’s no turning off the main road. We have to park in a nearby lay-by, jump over metal barriers, dodge fast oncoming traffic, then scramble up a steep slope to reach the village.
Khan al-Ahmar is home to 173 people, many of them Bedouin shepherds who have lived in the area since time immemorial. But the Israeli state is determined to demolish it to make way for the expansion of the nearby settlement of Kfar Adumim.
Three weeks ago, after years of legal battles, the government received clearance from the Supreme Court to relocate the Bedouin. The judges ruled that the demolition can go ahead because the Bedouin do not have building permits. But this is a sham: the Bedouin have no way of getting permits.
'I was born here. They are the ones who came afterwards. We won’t leave, whatever happens. We will stay here'
- Ibrahim Jahalin, Bedouin shepherd
As far as the Bedouin are concerned, now it’s just a case of waiting for the arrival of bulldozers and the Israeli army to drive them out.
They have been designated a new home next to a garbage dump in east Jerusalem. In this urban location, about which they were not consulted, there is no room to graze their flocks and little prospect of other work. Indeed, the Bedouin say that their proposed new home is foul-smelling, contaminated, toxic and unfit for human habitation.
I travel with a guide from the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. When we reach the village we meet Ibrahim Jahalin, a shepherd. His 11-year daughter plays nearby. What will he do, I ask, when the bulldozers come?
“Why should I even have to go anywhere?” he says. “I was born here. They are the ones who came afterwards. We won’t leave, whatever happens. We will stay here.”

Series of humiliations

This threat of resettlement is just the latest in a series of humiliations meted out towards the Palestinian Bedouin by the Israelis.
Jahalin belongs to a tribe who were expelled from the Negev desert by the Israeli military during the 1950s. They moved to where the neighbouring settlement of Kfar Adumim is now, but were then expelled from there as well.
Israel denies the Bedouin access to public services and basic infrastructure, as it does to most Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank. They have no access to the electricity grid. In 2015 the Israeli civil administration confiscated 12 solar panels that had been donated to the Bedouin, although these have since been won back following a legal battle.
There is no access to the Jericho-Jerusalem highway, even though it’s barely 100 metres away and we can hear the cars rushing past as we talk.
Ibrahim tells me: “It takes 10 minutes to get to Jericho on the highway. Because we are disconnected from the road, it takes half an hour.”
This isolation has tragic consequences. Ibrahim lost his young daughter Aya in a domestic accident. He blames delays in getting her to hospital. “She died but she could have been saved," she says.
Ibrahim and I talk in the yard of the nearby school, to the sound of children singing in the classroom. The site - which serves more than 150 pupils, many from neighbouring communities - is also scheduled for demolition.
I tell Ibrahim about the mounting anger in Britain and the West at plans to demolish his village. Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, is “deeply concerned” while 100 MPs have written to the Israeli ambassador, suggesting that the demolition may breach international humanitarian law.



UKinJerusalem🇬🇧
✔@UKinJerusalem

Minister for the Middle East @AlistairBurtUK and UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson call upon not to demolish Palestinian Bedouin village of .
4:37 AM - Jun 12, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

But the Bedouin are understandably cynical about this latest manifestation of Western concern. They are all too used to shows of support from the West that mean nothing. The village's visitor's book  reads like a roll call of the great and good.  Alistair Burt, Minister of State for the Middle East, his predecessor Tobias Ellwood, Ed Milliband,former Labour Leader, Valerie Amos, the UN Under Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator), Martin Shulz, former leader of the German Social Democratic Party, Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Foreign Affairs Secretary, William Hague, former Foreign Secretary are among the 60 odd names in the book. Briefings have been held in the UN, the British Parliament, the European Parliment, in Sweden, Norway. It has absolutely no effect on Israel.
If Israel goes ahead with demolition then it will be a defining moment in the history of the occupation of the West Bank. For the past few decades, Israel has pursued a policy which, for the most part, has stopped short of forced population transfer.
Instead the authorities have made conditions so dreadful for Palestinians in the hope that they eventually move of their own accord. Now they are moving towards deportation: in effect the replacement of one ethnic group by another through violence.
That’s ethnic cleansing.
In the words of B’Tselem: “This is not a trivial or insignificant violation of International Humanitarian Law, but a breach that constitutes a war crime.”

'Step-change' in occupation

After our visit to Khan al-Ahmar, we go back to the road and drive up to the neighbouring settlement of Kfar Adumim. We pass small businesses, a photographic studio and a primary school. In glaring contrast with our journey to the Bedouin village, access is easy along metalled roads. The settlers live in comfortable detached houses with sweeping views over scenery resonant of the Bible.
We park at the top of the hill and look down at the Bedouin village below.
I asked myself: what do the settlers see when they look down on the Bedouin? Criminals? Terrorists? A human sub-species which can be disposed and redisposed of at will?
Buildings in Khan al-Ahmar are mostly constructed from tin sheets and wooden panels (MEE/Yumna Patel)
Ibrahim told me how some settlers from Kfar Adumim were on his side. They came down at night to sleep in his encampment so they can help if the bulldozers come. A vestige of humanity. But it was the settlers of Kfar Adumin who brought the petition which demanded the destruction of the village school.
Ibrahim told me: “I fear it will happen this weekend when there is a holiday at the end of Ramadan.”
It looks inevitable that this community will be swept away and become another casualty of the occupation. And that will be a giant step towards the creation of an urban settlement block that would split the southern and northern parts of the West Bank in two.
It will also mean a step change in the occupation as Israel moves to a policy of forcibly transferring other communities. And the two-state solution will look that much more like a ruined dream.
- Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Photo: Ibrahim Jahalin, a Bedouin shepherd, has vowed to stay in Khan al-Ahmar "whatever happens" (MEE/Peter Oborne)
Posted by at

Arab No Man’s Land

The showdown with Qatar is forcing all Middle Eastern countries to pick sides — and leaving two of them in the lurch.

Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz (C), Bahrain's King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa (R) and Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah attend a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) informal summit in the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah on May 31, 2016.(STRINGER/AFP/Getty Images)


BY , -
JUNE 14, 2018, 2:09 PM
No automatic alt text available.Just over a year ago, four of America’s Arab allies — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt — severed relations with Qatar, another key U.S. ally. They enacted a land, sea, and air blockade to punish the tiny emirate for what they claimed was Doha’s “embrace of various terrorist” entities. Observers widely thought the diplomatic spat would be patched up within a few months. After all, this was hardly the first time Qatar and its Gulf neighbors had squabbled.

But a year later, no end remains in sight. Qatar has adjusted remarkably well to the quartet’s punitive measures, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are happy to let the blockade continue, because it comes at no cost to them. The true losers in this crisis are the traditionally neutral Gulf states of Kuwait and Oman, which have been caught in the middle.

Kuwait and Oman carry less weight economically and geopolitically than their behemoth neighbors. They gain the most from the protective umbrella of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is now unraveling. It’s in their interests to work to save the GCC, but they have been thrust into untenable positions. Kuwait, a bad actor on the terror finance front in its own right, is forced to play the role of mediating neutral party for a crisis in which both sides are unyielding. Cash-strapped Oman is trying to walk a tightrope by remaining officially neutral, but all the while capitalizing on Qatar’s isolation to deepen economic links with it — which earns the sultanate the ire of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

When the blockade broke out, Kuwaiti Emir Sabah al-Sabah — the Gulf’s most senior ruler — called Qatar’s Emir Tamim Al Thani and asked him to refrain from making an official statement about the crisis to give him time to resolve it. The next day, Sabah went to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Salman. That Sabah became mediator is unsurprising; Kuwait mediated the 2014 GCC crisis between Qatar and its neighbors, which stemmed from Qatari support to the Muslim Brotherhood. But the game is different now. The measures taken in 2017 are far more severe than what Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama did in 2014. They are more severe, in part, because Qatar signed the Riyadh agreement, a set of principles that ended that round of conflict, but has neglected to abide by it.

With neither side willing to make the first move to solve the crisis, it’s unsurprising that Kuwaiti shuttle diplomacy and mediation have failed. This failure is all the more awkward as Kuwait attempts to represent unified Arab interests on the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, Kuwait is juggling these roles and not doing a particularly good job at either.

Kuwait is now feeling mounting pressure to choose a side and abandon its traditional neutrality. If it does refrain from picking a side, it will likely find itself on the receiving end of Saudi and Emirati anger. Privately, some Kuwaiti officials have expressed concerns that Saudi Arabia might interfere with its leadership succession process. With an octogenarian emir and crown prince, as well as a combative and populist parliament, the downside risks for the emirate only multiply the longer the crisis continues.

The sultanate of Oman faces a similar scenario. Unlike Kuwait — which has stood both politically and economically neutral — Oman has maintained only political neutrality while increasing trade with Qatar. Oman’s economy has been pounded by weakened oil prices, and Muscat has one of the most vulnerable positions in the GCC, with the difference between its foreign assets and liabilities standing at less than 10 percent of GDP now compared to 55 percent in 2014. Major credit agencies have downgraded Omani debt over the last year; Standard & Poor’s downgraded Oman to junk status, while it hovers just above junk on Fitch and Moody’s ratings.

Higher trade with Qatar has been an economic boon for Muscat. Omani non-oil exports to Qatar increased by 144 percent in the first nine months of 2017. Oman became Qatar’s top non-oil export destination in December 2017, receiving roughly 35 percent of total Qatari exports. In January, the two states signed a memorandum of understanding to deepen economic and trade ties. Oman’s position as a logistics hub has improved as well, with many Qatar-based logistics and shipping firms taking advantage of the sultanate’s Sohar Port. Similarly, Oman Air has been the prime beneficiary of the airspace ban. With Qatar Airways barred from the quartet’s airspace, and the quartet’s flagship carriers banned from Qatari airspace, Oman Air has capitalized on Muscat’s neutrality, flying all over the Gulf.

Omani officials have privately shared hopes that these booming trade ties with Doha will be sustainable after the GCC spat is resolved. But Oman is also reaping Saudi and Emirati ire along the way. Its neighbors are already grumbling about the sultanate’s alleged hand in shipping weapons to Yemen’s Houthi rebels. New reports that Bank Muscat was tapped by the Obama administration to help Iran convert $5.7 billion in Omani currency has done little to ease tensions, as well.

Meanwhile, Oman’s ailing Sultan Qaboos will turn 78 later this year. Suffering from terminal cancer since at least 2014, the sultan has yet to publicly appoint an heir. Saudi or Emirati meddling in Oman’s succession is entirely possible. And Omanis remember clearly what happened during the 2014 Gulf crisis, when the Saudis and Emiratis moved quickly to influence if not weaken the newly minted Emir Tamim.

While Kuwait and Oman are stuck in a no man’s land, the rest of the GCC is not. The quartet is not materially affected by the blockade. Sustaining it comes at no cost to them. Economically, the blockade has had some knock-on effects, especially for Dubai, but overall impact is minimal.
Domestic political stability is unaffected by the spat. Conversely, taking the first steps to end it would cause them to lose face. Qatar initially suffered economically but has since stabilized, and the tiny emirate is unwilling to make any concessions to the Arab quartet.

Remarkably, Qatar’s banking sector has rebounded, thanks to a $26 billion government injection. Doha quickly established new trade links with Iran and Turkey, and the blockade may even have been the kick Qatar needed to finally speed up much-needed economic reforms. Societally, the blockade has fostered a sense of nationalism centered around resilience. A young artist’s sketch of the Qatari emir, titled Tamim the Glorious, has become a symbol of this new nationalism. And after a rocky start, the regime in Doha has even managed an about-turn with U.S. President Donald Trump.

For both Qatar and the Arab quartet, maintaining the blockade would be the easiest option. Ending it presents costs to both camps. But the equation is flipped for Kuwait and Oman. The costs go up the longer the conflict persists. As a result, they both do their best to maintain the course, even as Gulf stability erodes around them.
Posted by at

Summit of the century: Will there be substance from the showpiece?

2018-06-15
Commenting on the meeting between the United States President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, most analysts said they had to pinch themselves to realise that what they were witnessing was real.  As if he was responding to these shocked analysts, the North Korean leader told Trump this was not any fantasy or science fiction. Such was the significance of the believe-it-or-not political event on Tuesday in the Singaporean island of Sentosa, which means peace and tranquillity in Malay.

Yes, what seemed only a few months ago impossible has happened. Just a few months ago, the two leaders were heaping insults on each other. 

The Singapore summit is now a landmark in post World War II history, perhaps rivalled only by US president Richard Nixon’s meeting with Chinese leader Mao Zedong in 1972.

But wait a minute. It is too early to proclaim that peace will dawn soon over the Korean Peninsula, ending 65 years of hostility. The path ahead is paved with many a hurdle. But before that, a little bit of history: 

The Korean War that began on June 25, 1950 has not technically ended, though the parties to the war have been observing a truce since July 1953.  The war ended with no clear victor, but the moral victory belonged to North Korea. It could have won the war, if the United States had not entered the war in support of the South. 

Although North Korea has been portrayed as an evil state by the United States, which itself is being accused of committing war crimes, North Korea’s eternal leader Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of the present leader, was a visionary. Within three years after the then cold war politics divided Korea along the 38th parallel in 1948 into the Soviet-and-China backed North and the US-backed South, Kim Il-sung made North Korea a prosperous state through a series of socialist economic reforms. In 1950, North Korea invaded the South with the ambition of uniting the two Koreas and liberating the southern peasants. 

With a series of rapid gains, the North Korean troops reached Pusan, the southernmost tip of Korea. The US forces, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, who was also overseeing the post-WWII occupation of Japan, held off the North Koreans at Pusan. Meanwhile, manipulating the UN Security Council and misleading the Soviet delegation, the US worked out an international intervention force to enter the war. This turned the tide. In three years of war, the US forces and allied troops almost annihilated North Korea, wiping out 20 percent of its population. But the direct intervention of China at the last stages of the war, helped work out a truce and restore the 38th parallel ceasefire line which has since been the de facto border between the two Koreas. 

Since then, the North Koreans have been looking at the US as an enemy, responsible for their misfortunes. 

Yet, at the summit, Kim Jong-un, now being honourably referred to as by the US President as ‘Chairman Kim’, told Trump: “It has not been easy to come to this point. For us the past has been holding us back, and old practices and prejudices have been covering our eyes and ears, but we have been able to overcome everything.”

Easier said than done. If a half day’s summit could cut a key from seven decades of animosity to open the door to peace, it will be a world wonder, though some may say a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. True, the ice has been broken. But, the question is: Has the thawing process begun?

The Singapore summit is not a kiss-and-make-up affair. Both Trump and Kim are hard nuts. The summit appeared to be a battle of wits – a battle, according to Trump-thrashing US media, Kim has won. Against the backdrop of handshakes, pats on the backs and diplomatic niceties, the air of mutual suspicion and one-upmanship was perceptible to the discerning mind. The looks from the corner of the eyes -- especially those which Kim secretly and quickly cast on Trump --and the vaguely worded post-summit communiqués symbolised the undercurrents. Kim has pledged to work for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula while Trump has given security guarantees. There was little or nothing concrete and specific.

The pledges contained in the communiqué are nothing new; similar pledges were made during the six-party talks in 2005, only to be broken even before the ink dried. Hours after the summit ended, the two sides upped the ante, giving different interpretations. North Korea on Wednesday interpreted what it had agreed in Singapore as a step-by-step denuclearisation process subject to conditions. 

Though, the US side took no decision to immediately lift the economic sanctions on North Korea, the survival of the summit’s momentum depends on concessions each side will make. As far as North Korea is concerned, lifting of the sanctions is a top priority. Now who will make the first move? 
By pointing at last month’s dismantling of the nuclear test site facility, North Korea may insist that it has already taken the first step. It may now urge the US to lift at least a few sanctions. But following a meeting with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said yesterday North Korea would not see any economic sanctions lifted until it had demonstrated “complete denuclearisation”.

The Pompeo comments were in sharp contrast to sentiments expressed by Twitter-happy Trump. Upon returning home, he tweeted, “Just landed -- a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

The contents of the tweet indicate that Trump is more concerned about his domestic vote base than international peace. The Singapore summit has raised his stocks among his supporters. They say he has displayed courage to do what other US presidents have shunned to do. He took a similar hardline position at last week’s G7 summit in Canada where he stood by his ‘America first’ policy, despite pressure from his G7 allies to relax tariffs and trade terms. 

The Singapore and Canada adventures may help Trump face reelection with confidence in 2020, but his posturing does not make him a man of peace. His Jerusalem move – shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem in breach of international law — was certainly not what a peace-loving leader would do.
North Korea is not naïve to give away its strategic weapons for a few billion dollars or onTrump’s assurance to scrap US war games with South Korea, unless the gains are much more than the losses. The stakes are high. North Korea gets all the respects because of its nukes. It will continue to play hardball with the Trump administration. At the same time, it is desperate to improve its economy. 
The US-North Korea summit cannot be seen as rapprochement because it comes at a time when the US-China cold war is seen to be intensifying in the Indo-Pacific region. With China being North Korea’s only trusted ally, Pyongyang is unlikely to move into unchartered waters with the US, abandoning the lifeline China has been offering it. 
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)