“The Sworn Enemy”

 Image by Parker Knight 

Tell me, when I ask you to think of two nations of the world who are notoriously known for their enmity, what names come to your mind? Israel and Palestine? USA and Russia? USA and North Korea? It is the latter that has come particularly into the limelight most recently yet it is quite a strange situation. If we consider them to be archenemies, it is questionable as to how their long-term hostility has not resisted a manifestation into direct conflict. So, what is it that’s stopped a usually arms-friendly nation from sending their warships over and demolishing the republic?

Their history spans a relatively long period in the timeframe of American history with relations being negative from as early as the mid-nineteenth century, before the nation split into the North and South regions, when the region closed its borders to Western trade and attacked ships sent to negotiate treaties. These relations worsened during the Cold and Korean wars and on creation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the United States refused to and continue to refuse to grant diplomatic recognition to the country.

As we look over the last century, we can see the US comfortably waging war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and, most recently, intervening in Libya. It would appear that wherever the US saw a threat, they would pre-emptively act on it and reduce the threat considerably. It is debatable, but perhaps they have stopped short of colonisation and imperialism whilst “democratising” and “stabilising” their battlegrounds. If they’re not waging a war physically, it’s almost certainly some form of psychological and propaganda warfare and a constant assertion of US dominance and power throughout the world – even if they wanted to, no country is left believing the US weak, including the UK. However, it appears the same cannot be said of North Korea.

Recent tests of satellites, long-range missiles and nuclear weaponry in the North Korean region has heightened tensions across the world. Yet, in vast contrast to the US intervention in Afghanistan which was just under a month after the 9/11 attacks, any direct action from the United States is restrained. Perhaps it is the worry of response from the allies, China and Russia in particular. Yet, this is unconvincing; the lack of support from allies did not stop them in their advancement into Iraq in 2003. Perhaps they have learned their lesson from the global criticism of this attack, and this is the reason they have also not intervened to stabilise Syria.

Yet, when Kim Jong-Un is blatantly threatening the United States with technology that could be used against Hawaii immediately, and an invasion that the American people are more likely to approve of than Iraq, it is bizarre that the US administration are able to hold so much restraint on their actions; it is not something they are so well known for. Perhaps we are seeing a change in attitude under Obama, even though his own home turf is supposedly directly at threat, with the whole Western coast in sights within three years.

Is this a continuation of the cold war that emerged between the United States and Korea in the mid-twentieth century, or is this a new cold war? Whatever it is, it is definitely a case of both countries preparing to flex their muscles and show off about their fabulous warheads that they could launch at any time, and maybe something we should be worrying about. Perhaps we’ve already responded with a secret deployment of troops in the South region who should be worried about their “final destruction”.

Technorati Tags: north korea,usa,war,invasion,cold war,nuclear,weapons

Choosing a Leader

Image by Cabinet Office on Flickr

It’s a funny thing choosing a leader for your country and essentially choosing someone to place your trust in to for a prolonged amount of time, with no real ability to recall your vote. It’s a big decision we must make, and most often one people end up regretting by the time the chosen one has finished dismantling the hard work that someone else has put in.

In the wake of Obama’s victory and re-election in the United States, it’s a little overlooked that we are now halfway through our Condemned Government (of course, unless by some stroke of luck, Parliament is closed) and that means we can officially count the days until we are certain their mandate will end. That wonderful time at which we can hold Clegg and Cameron to account and completely humiliate them with what will probably be a resounding Labour win is now closer than the time we voted them in (although this is arguable in itself.) The end is nearer than the beginning, although not exactly nigh yet.

It’s no secret that all of the parties are already planning their election campaigns for 2015, deciding who will lead their campaigns and what their manifestos and key policies will be, making predictions for what will happen over the next few years and be high on the agenda in 2015, so I’m going to make some of my own:

• Nick Clegg will be replaced as leader by Vince Cable either for the election or as a result of the election
• The PCC elections will show to have little support and little turnout and the decision will be reversed or reduced
• The Labour Party will not have tuition fees as a key policy or will only reduce fees by a small amount
• UKIP and the Green Party will see a small rise in support
• Labour will win an overwhelming majority, but still not match Blair’s 2001 majority. Lib Dems will lose a large number of seats and Nick Clegg will not win the Sheffield seat.
• The UK will enter another recession in 2013.
• Another European country using the Euro will collapse.
• There will be further military intervention in the Middle East, Syria or the Faulklands.

Some may seem far-fetched, and some might seem plain obvious. I think all of these are highly possible, but let’s see how the next two and a half years pan out, shall we?

What's next for Syria?

The Syrian crisis continues to worsen and any improvement to the situation seems an all too distant possibility. The announcement of the UN's special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan's resignation from the role highlights the difficulty of the task; and aside from that, revelations from Obama's administration and talks between Russia's Putin and David Cameron  clearly demonstrate the absolute lack of international unity.

But what is the real heart of the problem? Is it a lack of unity between all members of the United Nations, with China and Russia vetoing any proposed action on Assad's regime, or is it the fact that neither the regime or the 'rebels' are adhering to the six-point plan that Annan attempted to implement? Every side blames the other, so no clarity is apparent. Regardless, the crisis is infuriating, and despite it's similarities to the Libyan uprising last year, it is also very different. Cynics might say it's to do with oil, others to say with key alliances; either way, there are civilians being killed left, right and centre here, and it's not something that should occur no matter the situation.

The situation is vastly different to Libya for a number of reasons; essentially, the sides of the oppositions and the length of time this conflict has spanned define the sensitivity of the situation. Comparatively, Libya appeared to have an almost everyone-against-Gaddafi situation, where the majority of citizens were in favour of his deposition, whereas within Syria, there is an obvious divide of opinion, and to favour one side over another would be to ignore the rights and opinions of a large sector of society, regardless of what the rest of the country and, indeed, the world thinks. Secondly, the conflict in Libya lasted only a couple of months before there was international intervention, whereas this conflict has lasted over a year now. The common opinion now is that Syria is militarised; citizens are used to conflict and there is danger for any person within the country. To arm the citizens would not simply result in the overthrow of the Government, but rather in the massacre of a vast number of citizens who disagree with the most armed side. These two points put us in a very difficult situation.

What's the correct way forward? I'm no expert on international relations, and I would hate to advocate war in any form, but it's obvious that some kind of action needs to be taken to depose Assad, or the country needs to be sorted and split, like with Sudan. But first, diplomacy needs to ensure that there is peaceful transition and implementation of whatever strategy is agreed upon. Unfortunately, diplomacy appears to be the first hurdle that cannot be overcome, forcing Annan's resignation today. And Obama appears to have decided that also, signing the document for approval in helping the rebels a few months ago, in a covert operation, just falling short of agreeing to arm them. We are yet to see the backlash on this, and a resolution that China and Russia agree appears too distant.

The strangest part of the situation; Syria have still been able to enter a team into the London 2012 Olympics, and they are competing alongside international athletes peacefully. How can a country that is killing its own citizens be able to peacefully enter an international sports competition is beyond me, but apparently it's possible.