Russian-Chinese Summit and the files of Iran and Korea القمّة الروسية الصينية وملفات إيران وكوريا

Russian-Chinese Summit and the files of Iran and Korea

يونيو 23, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Russian-Chinese summit is held in Beijing while there is a talk about a Chinese-Korean dispute that is considered more probable to lead to a North Korean- American understanding without the knowledge of China, and a talk about a Russian-Iranian dispute that is considered more probable to lead to an American-Russian understanding without the knowledge of Iran and even at its expense. There are many titles on the agenda of the summit which includes the two main countries which exhaust the image of America as a superpower militarily, economically, politically, and morally. They succeeded in showing it during the last decade as a country that has a lot of debts and cannot wage a war, a country that sells its allies in public and in secret and breaks its promises. The beginning was a cooperation between Beijing and Moscow in 2007 through the double veto against the project of a US resolution in the UN Security Council on Myanmar which became a title of an open confrontation through the repetition of the double veto in the Syrian file in November 2011 to prevent the US unipolar of using the UN Security Council as a cover of the American policies since the fall of Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The debate which the Americans succeeded in its promoting to their rivals and opponents ensures that the domination of the media arena is still for the Americans and their allies, otherwise how to believe the assumptions of US-North Korea understanding without Russia or China? How does Korea quit its future and the sources of its power after half of a century of steadfastness just in exchange for American promises that the position of Washington towards the Iranian nuclear file reveals how they would be? But only if we believe the narration of the surrender of North Korea, However, we saw how the North Korean leader suggested the cancelation of the summit with the US President and we saw how the latter stuck to its holding. On the other hand how can we believe that there is a Russian-Iranian dispute about who will have an understanding with America first while the battle has not changed yet neither in Syria nor in the international arena? Furthermore the US sanctions are still pursuing Russia as they pursue Iran. In addition to the taxes and duties on iron and aluminum which target the Chinese economy, as the national security of China which is targeted by the maneuvers which are performed by Washington in the neighborhood, and what is related to the deployment of strategic weapons as the Thad missile system in South Korea and the sea parts in the China Sea?

During the separating decade from the first veto in which Russia and China participated to announce the end of the era of the US unipolar, Russia and China succeeded in launching Brix system and developing it, as they succeeded in forming frameworks for alliances in the same direction, and as they succeeded in making the war on Syria a turning point in the path of the US military interventions in the world. For the first time after the war of Yugoslavia and the war on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya Washington hesitates and thinks fully then it disregards the wide military intervention since it knows that it will lose in the war on which it bet to change the rules of the international policy and to create a new Middle East. The Russian and the Chinese bilateral succeeded in building two regional scopes one in the south of Russia towards the borders of Saudi Arabia with Iraq, it  includes Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria and the other in the east and west of China, it includes North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. These two scopes have become the center of the major American strategies and interests in the world, due to their strategic position, geopolitical challenge, sources of energy, crossings, and waterways, and the power pipelines.

It is wrong to think that the Russian-Iranian relationship or the Korean or Iranian relationships with Russia and China are approaching their ends. This time is for linking the two regional scopes which are linked across Iran with Russia and China to become one scope. This time is the time of combatting the challenge of the international banking relationships which America sticks to. This time is the time of interest in attracting Europe to a central region between the Chinese-Russian axis and the American one. This time is the time of drawing new rules of the new political and economic relations in the world in the light of the confrontations witnessed by the world since the fall of Berlin Wall and the US unipolar on the international arena, after the success in overthrowing the US policy of war and half way of overthrowing the protection represented by the policies of the US sanctions through the examples of Iran and North Korea,  and their ability to withstand and to impose new equations as the Russian-Chinese interest and the Iranian-Korean interest. It is the time of more cohesion and more coordination, even if the maneuvers need initiatives as the Russian-Chinese position which refuses the nuclear weapon of Korea, or bartering the US presence in Syria with aspects of the Iranian presence. These pressing cards are made to be used in negotiation not in a war, exactly as the Syrian chemical weapons which end the US campaign on Syria by using in its real place as a tool to prevent the war by presenting it as a way for face-saving of America which failed to win the war.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

القمّة الروسية الصينية وملفات إيران وكوريا

يونيو 9, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– تنعقد القمة الروسية الصينية في بكين في ظروف يطغى عليها الحديث عن خلاف صيني كوري من جهة يرجّح تفاهماً بين كوريا الشمالية وأميركا من وراء ظهر الصين، وبالعكس خلاف روسي إيراني يرجّح تفاهماً أميركياً روسياً من وراء ظهر إيران بل على حسابها. والكثير من العناوين تنتظر على جدول أعمال القمة التي تضمّ البلدين الرئيسيين اللذين تسبّبا باستنزاف صورة أميركا كدولة عظمى عسكرياً واقتصادياً وسياسياً وأخلاقياً، ونجحا بإظهارها خلال العقد الأخير كدولة ترتهن للديون، وتعجز عن خوض الحرب، وتبيع الحلفاء في العلن والخفاء، وتتنكّر للعهود وتحنث بالوعود، وكانت البداية المتواضعة لتعاون بكين وموسكو في عام 2007 بالفيتو المزدوج الذي مارساه في إسقاط مشروع قرار أميركي في مجلس الأمن الدولي حول ماينمار، الذي صار عنواناً لمواجهة مفتوحة بتكرار الفيتو المزدوج في الملف السوري في تشرين الثاني 2011 وفي شباط عام 2012 قطعاً لسياق التفرّد الأميركي باستخدام مجلس الأمن الدولي غطاء أحادياً للسياسات الأميركية منذ سقوط جدار برلين وانهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي.

– النقاش الذي نجح الأميركيون بتصديره إلى ساحة منافسيهم وخصومهم يؤكد أنّ السيطرة على الساحة الإعلامية لا تزال للأميركيين وحلفائهم، وإلا كيف يمكن التصديق والدخول في مناقشة فرضيات من نوع إمكانية تفاهم كوري شمالي أميركي بلا روسيا والصين، وأن ترمي كوريا مستقبلها ومصادر قوّتها بعد نصف قرن من الصمود في الهواء بمجرد وعود أميركية تكشف طبيعتها مواقف واشنطن في الملف النووي الإيراني، إلا إذا صدّقنا رواية استسلام كوريا الشمالية. وقد رأينا الزعيم الكوري الشمالي يلوّح بإلغاء القمة مع الرئيس الأميركي ورأينا الأخير يتشبّث بعقدها. وفي المقابل كيف نصدّق تنازعاً روسياً إيرانياً على من يسبق الآخر بالتفاهم مع أميركا، والمعركة في ذروتها ولم تنته بعد لا في سورية ولا على الساحة الدولية، والعقوبات الأميركية تلاحق روسيا كما تلاحق إيران، والضرائب والرسوم على الحديد والألمنيوم تستهدف الاقتصاد الصيني كما تستهدف الأمن القومي للصين. المناورات التي تجريها واشنطن في الجوار، وما يتصل بنشر أسلحة استراتيجية مثل منظومة ثاد الصاروخية في كوريا الجنوبية، والقطع البحرية في بحر الصين؟

– خلال العقد الفاصل من الفيتو الأول الذي تشاركت فيه روسيا والصين لإعلان نهاية زمن الأحادية الأميركية، نجح الثنائي بإطلاق منظومة «بريكس» وتطويرها، كما نجح كلّ منهما في تشكيل أطر لتحالفات موازية بالاتجاه ذاته، ونجحا في جعل الحرب في سورية نقطة تحوّل في مسار التدخلات الأميركية العسكرية في العالم، فهي المرة الأولى بعد حرب يوغوسلافيا، والحرب على العراق وأفغانستان وليبيا، تتردّد واشنطن وتقيم الحسابات ثم تصرف النظر عن التدخل العسكري الواسع، وهي تعلم أنّ ثمن ذلك خسارتها للحرب، التي راهنت عليها لتغيير قواعد السياسة الدولية واستيلاد شرق أوسط جديد، وقد نجح الثنائي الروسي الصيني ببناء فضاءين إقليميّين، واحد جنوب روسيا وصولاً لحدود السعودية مع العراق، يضمّ تركيا وإيران والعراق وسورية، وثانٍ شرق الصين وغربها يضمّ كوريا الشمالية وباكستان والهند وأفغانستان، لا تملك واشنطن في التعامل معهما الكلمة الفصل دون الأخذ بالحساب مكانة وموقف ومصالح روسيا والصين. وقد صار هذان الفضاءان محور الاستراتيجيات والمصالح الأميركية الكبرى في العالم، لما يختزنان من موقع استراتيجي وتحدٍّ جيوسياسي، ومصادر للطاقة للمعابر والممرات المائية، وشبكات أنابيب الطاقة.

– واهم ومشتبه من يظن أنّ زمن الافتراق الروسي الصيني يقترب، أو مَن يتوهّم بأنّ العلاقات الكورية أو الإيرانية بروسيا والصين تهتزّ. فالزمن هو ربط الفضاءين الإقليميّين اللذين يتصلان عبر إيران بروسيا والصين ليصيرا فضاء واحداً. والزمن هو زمن التصدّي لتحدّي العلاقات المصرفية الدولية التي تُمسك بها أميركا، وزمن الاهتمام باستقطاب أوروبا إلى منطقة وسط بين المحور الصيني الروسي والمحور الأميركي. والزمن هو زمن رسم قواعد جديدة للعلاقات السياسية والاقتصادية الجديدة في العالم، في ضوء المواجهات التي شهدها العالم منذ سقوط جدار برلين والتفرّد الأميركي على الساحة الدولية، بعد النجاح في إسقاط سياسة الحرب الأميركية، وبلوغ منتصف الطريق في إسقاط جدران الحماية التي تمثلها سياسة العقوبات الأميركية بقوة نموذجَي إيران وكوريا الشمالية، وقدرتهما على الصمود وفرض المعادلات الجديدة، كمصلحة روسية صينية، كما هي مصلحة إيرانية وكورية، فهو زمن المزيد من التماسك والمزيد من التنسيق، ولو اقتضت المناورات مبادرات من نوع الموقف الروسي الصيني الرافض لسلاح نووي في كوريا، أو عنوان مقايضة الوجود الأميركي في سورية ببعض وجوه الحضور الإيراني، فهذه أوراق قوّة تمّ تصنيعها لتستعمل في التفاوض وليس في الحرب، تماماً كما السلاح الكيميائي السوري الذي تمّ إجهاض الحملة الأميركية على سورية، باستعماله في مكانه الحقيقي، كأداة لمنع الحرب، عبر تقديمه سبيلاً لحفظ ماء الوجه للأميركي الذي خاب رهانه على الفوز بالحرب.

Related Videos

https://youtu.be/UIQyf1U07mc

Related Articles

 

 

Advertisements

Trump – Kim Summit قمة ترامب كيم

Trump – Kim Summit

يونيو 23, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Summit which brought together the US President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is a historic international event that is almost similar to the normalization of the US-Chinese relationships four decades ago during the visit of the former US President Richard Nixon to Beijing. The document signed by the two presidents has a special value as it has interpretations and meanings due to the surrounding contexts. The title of the joint document is similar to the framework which surrounded the Iranian nuclear agreement and paved the way for its birth after months through Iran’s commitment not to possess a nuclear weapons in exchange for America’s commitment to lift the sanctions, while in Korea there are US security and economic guarantees in exchange for a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

The first title resulted from the meeting is as much as it is a confirmation of a mutual desire to reach to a peaceful solution to the crisis, it asserts that if North Korea did not have a nuclear arsenal that would threaten America it would not get the interest of the US President who belittles his allies and treats them arrogantly as France and Britain which are superpowers. This interest, this friendly language, and this message may be of Iran’s interest which committed not to possess nuclear weapons and implemented its commitments with the testimony of the International Atomic Energy Agency but it got only renunciation, as the US treatment of Iran which will be of Korea’s interest regarding the fate of pledges after the end of the threat of the Korean nuclear weapons.

The second title which will turn into a practical question is will Washington within the concept of nuclear disarmament  from the Korean Peninsula remove its arsenal from it, including the Thad strategic missiles which worry China? Will Korea dismantle and destroy its weapons or will it send it to out of Korea to China or Russia? Respectively, will Korea demand a Russian-Chinese guarantee to protect its weapons from any aggression in exchange for keeping its nuclear weapons? Or will it accept the risk of just having US guarantees that it knows already that they may turn into words that can be denied? How can China or Russia be partners in guarantees without being partners in the feeling of security with the US commitment to remove the worrying missiles from South Korea?

The third title is economy; Korea is not as Iran the oil, industrial, agricultural country which does not need but to lift the sanctions to be interested economically. What it needs to develop its economy is more than opening markets and lifting sanctions. It is a country that needs at least one billion dollars to launch a comprehensive development project after years of suffering and austerity to the extent of famine. It spent what it has on its nuclear project to bargain it someday with these billions, so how can it obtain them without South Korea, Japan, China and maybe Europe? Can this be achieved without their partnership in making the integrated solution? Knowing that the US President is treating everyone including his Japanese and Korean partners in a way that does not make them feel as partners.

Maybe the US President finds it easy to distinguish the Korean state from the Iranian one in terms of its non- interfering with the confused files which of America’s interest as Israel’s security, domination on oil and gas markets, the wars of Syria and Yemen, and the future of Iraq. However the Koreans and the Americans know that the internationalizing of the negotiations and the understandings is a mutual undeniable need as it is a way to link the other international files.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

قمة ترامب كيم

يونيو 13, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– تشكّل القمة التي جمعت الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب والزعيم الكوري الشمالي كيم جونغ أون حدثاً دولياً تاريخياً، يكاد يشبه تطبيع العلاقات الأميركية الصينية، قبل أربعة عقود، مع زيارة الرئيس الأميركي الأسبق ريتشارد نيكسون لبكين، ومثلما تمنح الوثيقة التي وقعها الرئيسان قيمة خاصة، تمنحها التعرّجات التي شهدتها والسياقات التي ولدت فيها تفسيرات ومعانيَ، فالعنوان الذي حملته الوثيقة المشتركة يشبه اتفاق الإطار الذي ولد حول التفاهم النووي الإيراني ومهّد لودلاته الناجزة بعد شهور، لجهة التزام إيران بعدم السعي لامتلاك سلاح نووي والالتزام الأميركي بفك العقوبات عنها. وفي كوريا ضمانات أميركية أمنية واقتصادية مقابل شبه جزيرة كورية خالية من السلاح النووي.

قمّة «سنغافورة»... كيف قوبلت في إسرائيل؟

– العنوان الأول الذي يطرحه اللقاء وما نتج عنه هو أنّه بقدر ما يمثل تأكيداً للرغبة المتبادلة بالوصول لحل سلمي للأزمة، فهو يؤكد أنه لو لم تكن لدى كوريا ترسانة نووية تهدّد أميركا لما استحقت من الرئيس الأميركي، الذي يستخفّ بحلفائه ويعاملهم بغطرسة وعنجهية، وأغلبهم من الدول العظمى، كفرنسا وبريطانيا، هذا الاهتمام وهذه اللغة الناعمة والودودة، وهذه الرسالة ربما تكون موضع قراءة في إيران التي التزمت بعدم امتلاك سلاح نووي وطبّقت التزامها بشهادة وكالة الطاقة الذرية الدولية ولم تلقَ إلا التنكّر للالتزامات، وبالمثل ستكون المعاملة الأميركية لإيران موضع عناية كورية لجهة مصير التعهّدات عندما يزول تهديد السلاح النووي الكوري لأميركا.

– العنوان الثاني الذي سيتحوّل سؤالاً عملياً، هل ستزيل واشنطن ضمن مفهوم نزع السلاح النووي من شبه الجزيرة الكورية ترسانتها منها، وضمناً صواريخ الثاد الاستراتيجية التي تقلق الصين. وبالمقابل هل ستسلك كوريا طريق تفكيك سلاحها وتدميره أم طريق إيداعه خارج كوريا، وبالتالي لدى الصين وروسيا؟ وبالتتابع هل سيكون من ضمن الضمانات التي تطلبها كوريا ضمان روسي صيني لحمايتها من أي عدوان، مقابل إيداع السلاح النووي لديهما، أم ستقبل المخاطرة بالاكتفاء بضمانات أميركية تدرك سلفاً أنها قابلة للتحوّل مجرد كلمات يمكن التنكّر لها عند أول منعطف؟ وكيف سيكون للصين وروسيا شراكة في الضمانات بدون شراكة في الشعور بالأمن بالتزام أميركي بنزع الصواريخ المقلقة من كوريا الجنوبية؟

– العنوان الثالث في الاقتصاد، فكوريا ليست إيران البلد النفطي والصناعي والزراعي الذي لا يحتاج إلا فك العقوبات كي ينطلق اقتصادياً، فما تحتاجه لتنمية اقتصادها أكبر من مجرد فتح الأسواق وإلغاء العقوبات. وهي بلد يحتاج لمئة مليار دولار على الأقل لإطلاق مشروع تنمية شاملة بعد سنوات من المعاناة والتقشف وصولاً حدّ المجاعة. وقد أنفقت كل ما بين يديها على مشروعها النووي لتقايضه يوماً ما بهذه المليارات، وكيف يمكن الحصول عليها من دون كوريا الجنوبية واليابان والصين، وربما أوروبا أيضاً، وهل يمكن أن يتحقق ذلك بدون شراكة كل هؤلاء في صناعة الحل المتكامل، فيما الرئيس الأميركي يعامل الجميع بمن فيهم شركاؤه اليابانيون والكوريون بلغة لا تشعرهم بأنهم شركاء؟

– قد يسهل على الرئيس الأميركي تمييز الحالة الكورية عن الحالة الإيرانية، لجهة عدم التداخل بينها وبين الملفات الشائكة التي تهم أميركا كأمن «إسرائيل»، والهيمنة على أسواق النفط والغاز، وحروب سورية واليمن، ومستقبل العراق، لكن في نهاية المطاف يعرف الكوريون والأميركيون أن تدويل المفاوضات والتفاهمات حاجة متبادلة لا يمكن تفاديها، والتدويل طريق للربط بالملفات الدولية الأخرى لا للانفكاك عنها.

Related Videos

What Was Achieved in Singapore

16-06-2018 | 10:04
All eyes were on Singapore this week where world-class showman and US President Donald Trump took the stage for what was undoubtedly the most important performance of his life.

What Was Achieved in Singapore

In a meeting with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-un that lasted just over 40 minutes, Trump reportedly managed to hammer out an agreement to denuclearize the entire Korean peninsula “very quickly”.

He then described his new relationship with Kim as a “special bond” and said that “people are going to be very impressed” by what the pair achieved.

Sure, it’s a far cry from Trump’s “fire and fury” days when he was threatening the North Koreans with total annihilation.

It’s also a departure from suggestions by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton to apply the not-so quick “Libyan model” in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

But some things have not changed. Sticking to the on-again, off-again approach when it comes to his diplomatic episodes with Pyongyang, Trump told reporters after the summit that he trusts Kim but may later say he “made a mistake”.

In substance, the summit communiqué is equally ambiguous. It is little more than a list of very generalized commitments and nothing that Pyongyang has not already agreed to over the past thirty years.

It offers no timetable or a definition of denuclearization – a term that was previously characterized by North Korea and the US in very dissimilar ways.

The National Director at the ANSWER Coalition Brian Becker, who attended the Singapore summit, believes that Pyongyang is “prepared to carry out the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula but only in exchange for a new policy from the United States.”

“Right now the world sees that North Korea was willing to make many efforts – four unilateral concessions in a row, including a moratorium on these nuclear missile technology tests. They are now waiting for reciprocation from the United States,” Becker adds.

Although the vague declaration does in theory pave the way for further negotiations, any long-term settlement between Washington and Pyongyang requires a painstaking years-long process.

That process would have to address a long list of issues, including the reunification of the two Koreas and the withdrawal of tens of thousands of American troops from the region.

To what extent Trump, his administration or anyone in Washington is truly willing to broach such matters is pure speculation.

But tensions along the Korean Peninsula are a prefect example of a decades-long geopolitical problem that cannot be solved without the participation of all key players including China and Russia.

Washington’s escalating trade war with China and growing tensions with Russia suggest that the Americans are not interested in any such overtures.

The dishonest broker

Unlike the vague pledges in Singapore, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was the product of 18 months of negotiations between seven nations and included specifics on denuclearization and verification.

Both were ‘historic’ events, and both played out before the lenses of the world media.

Unfortunately for all involved, Washington’s nuclear deals never last longer than one presidential term.

Trump ripped-up Barack Obama’s Iran deal. Obama killed Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who signed a nuclear disarmament deal with his predecessor George W. Bush. And Bush brings us back to North Korea, tearing up Bill Clinton’s nuclear deal with Kim Jong-un’s late father.

Journalist and political commentator Shobhan Saxena says that the “North Koreans have to be careful”.

“They should know whom they are dealing with because the Americans have proven again and again that they are not honest brokers of peace and they have failed time and again to keep their word,” Saxena explains.

In essence, all these agreements were little more than short-term strategies in Washington’s quest for hegemony.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and ratchet up tensions with Tehran also implies that the Americans will have to direct more recourses towards the Middle East.

As such, a temporary easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula would certainly go a long way in guaranteeing that the US avoids a struggle on two fronts at a time when its power and influence are on the decline.

The domestic angle

The optics of the Singapore summit feed the narrative of a major diplomatic victory for the Trump Administration.

Trump, who desperately needs a win, will undoubtedly use the Kim meeting for domestic consumption.

His Republican Party is preparing for midterm elections, and the president needs them to retain their majority in Congress or he risks increasing his chances of being impeached.

Naturally, while waiting for the dust to settle, Trump will also be eyeing a second term in office.

With every White House policy decision being scrutinized, the incumbent will have his work cut out.

And having talking points about a ‘historic’ meeting – the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader – certainly helps.

Source: Al-Ahed News

See also: قمة ترامب كيم

Is Trump-Kim Deal Really Peace Or Is It A Set Up For War?

June 14, 2018 (Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post) – Presidents Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un are perhaps the two most unpredictable leaders in the world with everyone wondering from day to day what new provocative statement will be ushered from official channels. However, the two most unpredictable leaders appear to have found common ground, perhaps even kindred spirits, during the course of the Singapore Summit when both men came away with an apparent mutually beneficial deal that will see the de-escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula.

While there have been no real concrete agreements as a result of the talks, the North Korean side has pledged its commitment to the denuclearization of the peninsula, while the American side has strongly suggested that it will put its military exercises on hold with South Korea.

The first step seems to be an agreement for both sides to work toward recovering the remains of Korean war dead and their immediate repatriation.

Beyond that, the statement agreed to by both parties reads as follows:

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to providing security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump, and Chairman Kim Jong Un, state the following:

The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

Reaffirming April 27, 2018, Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, commit to implementing the stipulations in the joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to holding follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new US-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and the security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America 

KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore

The talks have now concluded with the remainder of the negotiating to take place between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his counterpart with some suggesting that the next stage is the freeing of American spies incarcerated in North Korea.

The Reaction From American Political Circles

While Republicans, having never met a war they didn’t like, attempted to keep their rage at the idea of peace under control, many like chicken hawk Lindsey Graham appeared on national media to tone down praise of Trump and warn against showing weakness and removing troops from one of America’s many war zones. Essentially, they are arguing that America should dictate the terms, Kim should agree, and there should be no American concessions of any value.

Democrats, however, have predictably been frothing at the mouth at even the idea of peace, particularly a peace negotiated by “literally Hitler” himself, Donald Trump. These warmongers and psychotics have railed against even talking to Kim Jong Un, claiming that there should be no peace whatsoever with a nation that has such horrible human rights violations, as if the United States has not racked up enough of those same violations of its own. These critics complain that Trump is engaging in “appeasement” of some kind which seems impossible to explain to anyone using logic or who is restrained by reality.

But what is actually happening with this summit? Is it a true and genuine desire for peace or is it just cover for the next war to take shape over the next several years?

The Potential Positive

It is difficult for any genuine anti-war activist to oppose the recent talks between the United States and North Korea. After decades of technical war, threats to “obliterate” North Korea, constant nuclear tests, repeatedly provocative war games, innumerable threats against one another, not to mention the tension between South and North Korea, two countries that have long wanted to talk to one another, the fact that tensions seem to be easing can scarcely be considered a bad thing.

While it is unfair that the United States and its “allies” can maintain nuclear weapons stockpiles as they march across the globe slaughtering innocent people while other countries cannot, an end to nuclear proliferation (across the board) is also desirable. If both countries can come to an agreement to, at the very least, stop provoking one another, America will have taken a greater step toward peace in Singapore than it has in decades.

For all their public appearances, both Trump and Kim have appeared legitimately happy at the results of the meeting and both have expressed high hopes for the future. Trump even went so far as to tweet that the “nuclear threat” from North Korea no longer existed. But is there more to the deal than just a desire for peace?

Despite America’s desire for war or, at least the appearance of potential war, both Koreas have expressed a desire to not only talk but to reunifyIn an historic meeting in April, 2018, the presidents of North and South Korea met and agreed to remove nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula and begin negotiating an end to the Korean war. Despite the influence of the United States on South Korea and the human rights nightmare of North Korea, it still remains clear that both Koreas have an interest in ending the war, bringing about peace, and perhaps moving forward with integration.

While it may publicly appear that the recent US/NK peace deal was a mutual desire between both parties to de-escalate and move towards peace, some analysts question whether or not that is the case and posit that the deal may have actually been made as a strategy of last resort on the part of the North Koreans.

As Andrew Korybko writes for Eurasia Future in his article, “The Trump-Kim Deal Is The First Example Of The ‘New Washington Consensus’,

As it currently stands, China has monopolized a large chunk of its neighbor’s economy, not out of any malicious or neo-imperial intentions but simply because it’s been the only lifeline to the “Hermit Kingdom” since the Soviet Union collapsed and Moscow cut off all of its previous aid to the country. For all practical intents and purposes, China controls the North Korean economy, an open secret that’s known to even the most casual observers even if it’s “politically incorrect” to publicly say and is regularly denied by Beijing. The never-ending international sanctions had the effect of scaring off most other investors, and Russia entered the game way too late in the past couple of years to make any tangible difference. Moreover, by the time that Moscow got interested in North Korea’s economic potential as a transit stateconnecting the investment-hungry but energy-rich Far East region with cash-flush but energy-poor South Korea, international sanctions became tighter, and Russia itself also signed onto them together with China.

The cumulative effect of this latest development, particularly in terms of China’s honest participation in the latest round of sanctions (for reasons related to its unease at having a nuclear-armed neighbor play the “useful idiot” in bringing American anti-missile infrastructure closer to its borders), was that North Korea had little choice other than to negotiate with the US and reconsider its nuclear capabilities. Faced with the real fear of experiencing another nationwide famine such as the one that reportedly struck the country in the 1990s, Chairman Kim’s immediate interests were purely economic, and he painfully came to perceive of his “big brother” in the north as a Great Power who isn’t above playing political games in pursuit of its self-interests. In China’s defense, its global strategy of multipolarity was being endangered by what it considered to be Kim’s recklessness in engaging in so many nuclear and missile tests, but regardless, the bonds of trust were irrevocably broken between these two.That, however, doesn’t mean that North Korea regards China as an “enemy”, but just that the young Kim had a rude awakening in terms of how the real world works, learning first-hand that slogans of ideological solidarity about a shared “communist struggle” don’t compensate for his country’s disadvantageous position as a pawn on the Hyper-Realist “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard”. Disheartened by this realization and likely feeling some natural resentment towards his former benefactors, Kim decided to enter into unprecedented denuclearization talks with the US, though prudently taking care to involve China in all manner of his consultations so as not to inadvertently make an actual enemy out of it given how easily this very sensitive situation could have turned into a fast-moving security dilemma between Pyongyang and Beijing had he not had the wisdom to do so. Seeking sanctions relief and a “counterbalance” to China, Kim ultimately agreed to the Singapore Summit with Trump.

Having predictably been briefed on the psychological-economic factors that drove Kim to come to the Singapore Summit and in all likelihood agree beforehand on what the outcome of this historic event would be, Trump came to the event with the fullest of confidence but also with a secret ace up his sleeve to sweeten the deal that he was about to publicly clinch with his counterpart. It’s now been revealed that Trump showed Kim a Hollywood-style four-minute video extolling the economic and developmental benefits that North Korea could receive if its Chairman chooses the right path at this once-in-a-lifetime crossroad that the film dramatically hints he was fated to appear at. Evidently, Kim must have really enjoyed the promising message that was conveyed because all of his body language immediately after his private viewing of this film with Trump during their one-on-one meeting was exceptionally positive and radiated happiness, sincerity, and confidence as he agreed to advance his country’s denuclearization.

In an interview with Tasnim News Agency, Korybko also stated that

After all, North Korea already blew up its only nuclear testing site, and its leader raced to win back Trump’s approval for the Singapore Summit instead of the reverse. This implies that the US is negotiating from a position of strength while North Korea is doing so from weakness, showing which of the two wants denuclearization to happen more. The lesson that both parties learned is that their highest representatives need to watch their words in order to not provoke either side into responding with anything dramatic as a means of saving their reputations, thereby potentially endangering the forthcoming talks and complicating North Korea’s strategic surrender to the US in exchange for promised aid and investment.

So the question is whether or not the North Korean side felt it had no other option than to move forward with a political deal, much like the Iran deal, in order to save face and survive. After all, it is not reasonable to require North Korea to disarm from its only real deterrent while the its enemy who has been breathing down its neck for the last several decades simply promises not to attack it.

A more important question, however, is whether or not the United States is negotiating in good faith or whether this new “deal” is just another “Iran deal” to feign an effort for peace while preparing for and even initiating war.

The “Libya Model”

Given that the United States has done nothing with its foreign policy but conduct illegal imperialist wars against sovereign countries that provided no threat to it now for decades, the concept that the United States is negotiating in good faith is hard to believe. It is particularly hard to believe when the United States had only recently engaged in epic harassment – politically, diplomatically, and militarily – against North Korea. Even more so, when the National Security Advisor and repeated war criminal John Bolton, stated plainly to FOX News Sunday that “We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004.”

Libya negotiated in good faith with the Bush administration and eliminated its nuclear weapons. Seven years later, the country found itself on the wrong end of a U.S. backed destabilization effort which soon became a proxy war and quickly became a NATO invasion. The result? Libya was left in absolute shambles where it remains to this day. Race slavery was instituted by some of the many Islamic fundamentalist militias supported by the United States to overthrow Ghaddafi who was himself sodomized by a bayonet and executed on camera. Bolton elaborated further on the “Libya Model” reference on CBS’ Face The Nation where he stated,

In the case of Libya, for example—and it’s a different situation in some respects—those negotiations were carried out in private. They were not known publicly. But one thing that Libya did that that led us to overcome our skepticism was that they allowed American and British observers into all their nuclear-related sites. So, it wasn’t a question of relying on international mechanisms. We saw them in ways we have never seen before.

Notably, the North Korea talks are taking place in public even if they aren’t being met with high praise.

Interestingly enough, Kim Jong Un seems to have a clear understanding of why giving up one’s nuclear weapons is a bad idea, particularly when it comes to the United States. In 2011, as Libya sunk under the waves of chaos, Kim stated that Ghaddafi’s decision to give up his nuclear weapons was a mistake. A North Korean Foreign Ministry official also described the “de-nuclearization” process as “an invasion tactic to disarm the country.” The official also stated that the “Libyan model” touted by Bolton was proof that North Korea’s strategy was the right one and that nuclear weapons was the only way to keep peace on the peninsula.

Surely, Kim Jong Un has not forgotten his own wisdom in terms of dealing with the United States. After all, there is little difference between dealing with a Bush, Obama, or Trump administration.
On the other hand, even seasoned leaders like Ghaddafi fell prey to deception and false promises of the U.S. For this reason, it cannot be ignored that one possibility as to why the United States seems so interested in peace at this point is related to removing Kim’s nuclear deterrent.

The Iran Deal Precedent

On Tuesday, May 8, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States will be pulling out of the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which was struck under the Obama administration, a deal that he repeatedly called a “bad deal” and even “the single worst deal I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody.”

“The so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon that will only endanger the survival of the Iranian regime,” President Trump said. “In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.”

He added that “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.”

Yet there was absolutely no evidence to back Trump up on his claims. Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats have stated that Iran is living up to its commitments. Still, Trump has argued in the past that, while Iran may be sticking to its commitments, it is violating the “spirit” of the agreement by “fostering discord” in the region.

This is highly ironic considering that the United States is the single biggest fosterer of discord in the Middle East alongside Israel. It’s also false that Iran is “fostering discord” and that it is not living up to its end of the deal. It should also be pointed out that Iran was doing nothing wrong in terms of its nuclear program before the deal and should never have been bullied into signing it to begin with.

Now, a sovereign country who has a right to pursue a nuclear energy program is being told by aggressive nuclear states that it cannot be allowed to be armed in the same manner, develop an adequate energy program, or defend itself against the aggression of the very states marching across the region and repeatedly stating their desire to overthrow, destabilize, or invade Iran.

But while this move may have come as a shock to some, it shouldn’t have. After all, the Iran deal itself was nothing more than the first step in the coming war on Iran. This can be seen clearly in the pages of the corporate-financier think tanks who develop and present US foreign and domestic policy. For instance, the Brookings Institution, as Tony Cartalucci writes, “whose corporate-financier sponsors include arms manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, energy giants Exxon Mobil, BP, Aramco, and Chevron, and financiers including Bank of America, Citi, and numerous advisers and trustees provided by Goldman Sachs,” wrote in 2009 of the plan to use just such a “deal” to then justify military action against Iran.
The Brookings Institution Report – Which Path To Persia?

The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.

The plan involves the description of a number of waysthe Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads,

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

From the writings of Brookings, it is readily apparent for all to see what the latest browbeating over the “terrible” Iran deal and how the Iranians are not living up to their obligations under the agreement coming from the Trump administration are all about. The United States has bullied Iran into accepting a deal it should never have had to agree to in the first place and now the U.S. is attempting to add restrictions and obligations that were never part of the deal to begin with and/or claim that Iran is not living up to its end of the deal. If Iran can be represented as having been uncooperative, Iran will be painted as having refused “a very good deal.”

As the report states, any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. For that reason, the idea is being promulgated that Iran was offered a great deal at the disadvantage of the United States but Iran would not abide by even this agreement, continuing to insist on gaining nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. and poor innocent Israel, forcing America’s hand after diplomacy failed.

Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but by entirely rational players. Still, they move forward with a number of options for attacking Iran. It should thus be obvious to anyone reading this report that the US, NATO, and Israel are uninterested in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian destruction.

“The so-called ‘Iran deal,’ introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with,” writes Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report.

The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states,

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Conclusion

While steps toward peace should be lauded, we must be sure these steps are actually being taken toward peace and not to another “Libya Model.” North Korea may want to re-enter the world at large but it must not do so if the end result will be the destruction of the country yet again. Since Kim Jong Un already has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, he has significant bargaining power in any negotiation. Upon giving those weapons up, however, he will have placed North Korea in a precarious position. It may be too early to tell as of yet what will be the result of the Trump-Kim agreement but, for now, those who truly desire peace must keep a watchful and skeptical eye open.

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books,Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions andDispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Support us at Patreon. Follow us on FacebookTwitterSteemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.

قمة كيم ترامب شانغهاي بدل نيويورك وعالم ما بعد بعد الدولار…!

يونيو 11, 2018

محمد صادق الحسيني

الزعيم الكوري الشمالي يهبط في سنغافورة للقاء زعيم القوة الأعظم في العالم ليلقنه درساً في تقبّل الهزيمة وعدم إنكار الانكسار أمام عالم المستضعَفين والفقراء…!

الزعيم كيم جونغ أون سيفاوض دونالد ترامب بتراث الصين الماوي العظيم، مستحضراً مشهد جيش الفيتكونغ بقيادة الجنرال جياب وهو يقتحم سايغون متوّجاً بالظفر. وقبل ذلك وبعده مثبتاً على كتفيه شارات النصر المؤزّر للجنرال قاسم سليماني والسيد حسن عبد الكريم نصر الله على تخوم وأسوار حواضر المدن العربية من دمشق حتى الحُدَيْدة، طالباً إذعاناً أميركياً جديداً بخسارتهم لحرب إخضاع الشعب الكوري وانتزاع قراره المستقلّ…!

هذا ما سيحاول الزعيم الكوري إظهاره للرئيس الأميركي الخارج لتوّه من هزيمته المدوية على بوابات الشام، حيث يقوم الآن رجال بشار حافظ الأسد مدعومين برجال الإمام خامنئي وسيد المقاومة، مجتمعين بإعادة تدوين التاريخ ورسم جغرافيا العالم الجديد..!

جغرافيا لعالم ينهار بقيادة الاستكبار الأميركي ومن ورائه كلّ الغرب المتصدّع، أمام عالم ينهض ويحمل أعباء وتحديات انتقال مركز ثقل العالم من الغرب إلى الشرق في أهمّ نقلة نوعية في التاريخ الحديث…!

إنه عالم ما بعد تهافت الدولار وما بعد النفط وما بعد الغاز وما بعد الأمم المتحدة ومجلس الأمن الدولي، وما بعد بعد «إسرائيل» قطعاً، والذي يتم تشييده كما تعكس حقائق الميادين حجراً حجراً في شانغهاي…!

من هناك تحديداً سيُدار حوار تاريخي من نوع مختلف تماماً، يوم الثاني عشر من حزيران بين كيم الذي سيمثل عاصمة مستقبل العالم الصاعد وترامب الذي سيمثل العالم الآفل نجمه شعاعاً شعاعاً…!

من جهة أخرى، فإنه وبعد أن رفض الرئيس الأميركي، دونالد ترامب، التوقيع على البيان الختامي لقمة الدول السبع الصناعية المنعقدة في كندا، فقد أصدر قصر الأليزيه بياناً هو الأندر من نوعه في تاريخ العلاقات الأوروبية ـ الأميركية جاء فيه:

إنّ السياسة الدولية لا يمكن أن ترتهن لموجات غضب والمقصود فيه الرئيس ترامب طبعاً .

وهذا يعني بلغة الأليزيه أنّ السياسة الأميركية أصبحت تدار بشكل أشبه ما تكون بسياسات عيدي أمين في أوغندا او «الإمبراطور» بوكاسا في أفريقيا الوسطى، وأبعد ما تكون عن سياسة الدولة العظمى التي من المفترض أن تتسم بالرزانة والثبات والاعتماد على المنطق والأصول المتبعة في التعامل مع الأزمات والأوضاع المختلفة في العالم…!

وعليه فإنّ لكافة دول العالم الحق الكامل في عدم الثقة بالسياسة التي يتبعها ترامب، وبخاصة الزعيم الكوري الشمالي الذي يستعدّ لخوض جولة مفاوضاته الأولى من نوعها مع هذا الزعيم المتهوّر…!

منذ توليه الحكم في الولايات المتحدة قبل عام ونيّف قام الرئيس ترامب بالانسحاب من اتفاقية المناخ واتفاقية نافتا واتفاقية النووي مع إيران. وأخيراً فرض رسوماً جمركية باهظة وتعسّفية على مواد صناعية أوروبية وصينية وغيرها. وهو ما اعتبر خرقاً فاضحاً لمبادئ منظمة التجارة العالمية التي تمنع مثل هذا الإجراء.

فكيف إذن لكوريا الشمالية وزعيمها، كيم جونغ أون، أن يثق بهذا الرئيس الذي انقلب حتى على حلفائه في الاتحاد الأوروبي وفِي حلف شمال الأطلسي وانسحب من اتفاقيات دولية وقعتها حكومات أميركية سابقة مع هذه الدول!؟

وهنا ثمة مَن يطالب الرئيس الأميركي بالتخلي، قبل كلّ شيء، عن عنجهيته وعنصريته وصلفه وخداعه وعدوانيته، وهو يحضّر لقمة سنغافورة مع نظيره الرئيس الكوري الشمالي، كيم جونغ اون.

بينما يتهمه كثيرون بأنه يهدف في الواقع إلى نزع سلاح كوريا الشمالية النووي وفرض نظام رقابة دولية على تسلحها الصاروخي وما الى ذلك، أي تجريد هذا البلد من كلّ عناصر قوّته تمهيداً لفرض الوصاية الأميركية عليه، في الوقت الذي سيجد نفسه مطالباً بقوة بالابتعاد عن هذه السياسة المخادعة والتفاوض على اتفاقية سلام بين الدولتين لتحلّ محلّ اتفاق وقف إطلاق النار الموقّع سنة 1953.

ما يعني أنّ اتفاقية السلام يجب ان تسبق التفاوض على اية موضوعات أخرى، وذلك لضمان درء وتلافي العدوان الأميركي على كوريا الشمالية. كما أنّ ذلك يعني إنهاء التهديد النووي الاميركي ضدّ كوريا الشمالية والذي له مصدران هما:

ـ القواعد الأميركية، التي تحتوي أسلحة، في المحيط الهادئ.

ـ المظلة النووية الأميركية لكلّ من كوريا الجنوبية واليابان.

وبناء على ذلك، فإنّ نجاح أو فشل القمة، التي ستعقد يوم غد الثلاثاء 12/6/2018، سيعتمد على ابتعاد الولايات المتحدة عن سياسة الغطرسة والتعامل مع الوضع في شبه الجزيرة الكورية بواقعية ومنطقية تحكم مفاوضات جدية تضع حداً للتسلح النووي في تلك المنطقة من العالم، من خلال التفاوض على:

ـ عقد اتفاقية سلام بين كوريا الشمالية والولايات المتحدة تشارك فيها كلٌّ من الصين الشعبية والاتحاد الروسي بصفتهما أحد أطراف الحرب الكورية سنة 1950 ـ 1953، وذلك كي تشكل هذه الاتفاقية أرضية لمواصلة التفاوض حول:

ـ إلغاء المظلة النووية المتقدّمة من الولايات المتحدة لكلّ من كوريا الجنوبية واليابان وبالتالي رفع التهديد النووي الأميركي المستمرّ ضدّ كوريا الشمالية.

ـ سحب كافة الرؤوس النووية المخزنة في القواعد الأميركية في المحيط الهادئ ومنع تحليق كافة أنواع الطائرات الحربية الأميركية القادرة على حمل رؤوس نووية سواء في المحيط الهادئ أو في أجواء وفوق بحار الصين والكوريتين واليابان.

من هنا، فإنّ أي حديث عن قمة سيتمّ خلالها بحث موضوع نزع سلاح كوريا الشمالية هو حديث يضع العصيّ في الدواليب وينمّ عن نية مبيّتة، من قبل الولايات المتحدة، لتخريب هذه القمة وإفشالها. وهذا بالضبط، ما عبّر عنه الداعي الأميركي الأوّل، مستشار الرئيس الأميركي لشؤون الأمن القومي جون بولتون قبل أيّام عندما قال:

ـ إنّ من الضروري نزع أسلحة كوريا الشمالية النووية والكيماوية والبيولوجية، وكذلك سلاحها الصاروخي وفرض نظام رقابة دولي صارم عليها كي يتمّ التأكد من تنفيذ هذه البنود.

أيّ أنه يطلب وضع كوريا الشمالية تحت الوصاية الكاملة للولايات المتحدة، الأمر الذي يُعتبر وصفة لإفشال هذه القمة وذلك مواصلة لعدم الاعتراف بالهزيمة من قبل الولايات المتحدة والتعامل مع دول العالم من منطلق تحقيق المصالح المشتركة بين الدول وبشكل متوازن ومتفق عليه.

ولكن كوريا، كما إيران، ليست دولاً مهزومة ولا ضعيفة في مواجهة الولايات المتحدة، بل إنها دول منتصرة بكلّ ما للكلمة من معنى. حيث إنها نجحت في إرغام الولايات المتحدة على الجلوس للتفاوض معها، أيّ مع إيران قبل أعوام ومع كوريا اعتباراً من منتصف هذا العام، وهما دولتان قويّتان ونوويتان بغضّ النظر عن امتلاك السلاح النووي لدى كوريا وعدمه لدى إيران .

ومن نافل القول تأكيد أنّ الولايات المتحدة ستتفاوض مع كوريا الشمالية، كما تفاوضت مع إيران سابقاً، وهي تعلم ان كوريا تفاوضها من موقع قوّة، كما فعلت إيران سابقاً، وانّ الولايات المتحدة لم تكن لتتفاوض مع أيّ منهما لو كانت هاتان الدولتان في حالة ضعف وعزلة، بل كانت ستقوم بغزوهما واجتياحهما وإسقاط نظامَي الحكم فيهما كما فعلت في العراق سنة 2003 وفِي ليبيا سنة 2011.

وانطلاقاً من المأزق الذي تعاني منه الولايات المتحدة في الموضوع الكوري وعدم قدرتها على المضيّ قدماً في مشاريعها العسكرية ضدّ كوريا الشمالية، فإنها ستعمل على:

ـ عدم التفاوض على النقاط الجوهرية، التي تشكل جوهر الأزمة في شبه الجزيرة الكورية، والمتمثلة في المظلة النووية الأميركية، المقدّمة لكلّ من كوريا الجنوبية واليابان، والسلاح النووي الأميركي المخزن في القواعد الأميركية في المحيط الهادئ والذي يشكل تهديداً دائماً ومباشراً لكوريا الشمالية.

ـ اتباع تكتيك تفاوضي لا يفضي الى اتفاق جدي وذي طبيعة استراتيجية وتحوّل في تعاطي الولايات المتحدة مع الأزمات الدولية، وفي الوقت نفسه لا يؤدّي الى فشل القمة فشلاً كاملاً.

ـ لذا فإنّ التكتيك التفاوضي الاميركي سيهدف الى إصدار إعلان نيات للتفاوض حول إنهاء حالة العداء بين الدولتين دون ذكر التفاوض على اتفاقية سلام بينهما.

حيث ترمي الولايات المتحدة، من وراء ذلك، الى تحقيق نجاح إعلامي دعائي لرئيسها وإبقاء سيف العقوبات مسلطاً على رقبة كوريا الشمالية على أمل أن يؤدّي ذلك الى إضعاف حكومة ذلك البلد، مما يضطرها للرضوخ للشروط الاميركية في نهاية المطاف.

لكن ما يجهله الشيخ الداعشي جون بولتون هو انّ العالم قد تغيّر وأنّ الولايات المتحدة لم تعد القطب الأوحد في العالم وأنّ الوضع في شبه الجزيرة الكورية هو جزء من الصراع الدولي الاستراتيجي بين القطبين، الصيني والروسي من جهة والاميركي من جهة أخرى، وأن القطب المزدوج لن يسمح بسقوط كوريا ضحية للسياسات العدوانية المخادعة للولايات المتحده، خاصة أنّ روسيا والصين قد خاضتا حرباً لمدة ثلاث سنوات دفاعاً عن كوريا واستقلالها في بداية خمسينيات القرن الماضي.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

Related

Nasser Kandil: 60 minutes on Great Return March and the Emerging Multipolar New World Order

Related

Between Moscow and Washington: Tel Aviv, Tehran,…..and Pyongyang بين موسكو وواشنطن: تل أبيب وطهران… وبيونغ يانغ

Between Moscow and Washington: Tel Aviv, Tehran,…..and Pyongyang

يونيو 3, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Diplomacy realizes realistically the concept of the balances of forces and the range of movement; it draws its ceiling modestly until it reaches gradually to the equations of power. Since the beginning of the war on Syria under American leadership, Moscow’s ceiling was the prevention of using the international authorization for western military intervention as in Libya, the veto in the UN Security Council formed the most prominent presence in this war, with the acceptance politically of disturbing ceilings to Syria contrary to what it witnesses, as the so-called the first Geneva statement which included a focus on a Syrian internal aspect that ends with the formation of transitional government. Moscow was confident that the prevention of the direct military US intervention will allow the steadfastness of Syria and will lead politically to the opportunity of the direct Russian military positioning in the war towards waging it along with Syria and its allies; Iran and the resistance.

In contrast, Washington which boasts of power and the illusion of the ability to use the surplus power and the capacities of its following alliance is practicing its arrogance, conceitedness, and the high ceilings. It is worth recalling that the two terms “the countable days of the Syrian President “and “those who surpass the red line will not escape from punishment “are two terms of the rational, moderate, and real President Barack Obama as described while comparing him with the current President Donald Trump, because the issue is the issue of America not Obama or Trump’s issue. The rationality affected Obama after he tested the force by mobilizing the fleets and after his failure to adapt Iran and blackmail it in its nuclear file and for fear of the running out of time in the game of useless sanctions, while Iran is approaching from having sufficient quantity of enriched uranium to manufacture its first bomb.

During thirty months of the military and diplomatic role in Syria, Moscow succeeded in drawing flexible ceilings through which it achieved the employment of the Syrian steadfastness and the role of the Iranian ally and the resistance forces to overthrow the war as a strategic concept to bet on Syria or to put the project of its division on the table. What is left from the file of the war on Syria became related directly to identification of the regional role of Syria after the restoration of its entire geography. This is expressed in the announced Russian and American positions. While Washington is trying to impose an Israeli equation entitled there will be no stability or unity in Syria as long as Hezbollah and Iran are on its territory. Moscow tries to put Israel which is involved in this equation in front of two options to accept to recognize voluntarily of the restoration of the Syrian state of its geography and getting the decision of disengagement and a role of the United Nations on the borders of the occupied Golan or the mandatory restoration will be accompanied with a role and deployment of Hezbollah and Iran on these borders. In both cases Russia advises to deal with Syria as a sovereign country that is responsible of the security of its geography and to leave the principle of the presence of Iran and Hezbollah in Syria as a sovereign file that belongs to Syria alone.

As there were negotiation complexities over the legitimacy of the international and regional Iranian role in its nuclear file and the overlap of the American-Saudi-Israeli speech about the nuclear file with the speech about the Iranian influence, as the qualitative transferring to the Russian role in Syria was related to end this Iranian legitimacy which was represented in the nuclear understanding. The Russian military positioning occurred after two months of the birth of the understanding. The American withdrawal from the understanding is an attempt to return the equation to what it was before. The Russian forces became in Syria and Syria has changed, it is not possible to return backward. On the other hand, Europe became a partner in the understanding and it does not seem easy to withdraw it from that understanding as if nothing has happened. The Russian- European convergence under the title of protecting the understanding opens the door in front of Moscow to continue its investment on Eurasia project which is attracted by common Middle Eastern interests and governed by united threats and dangers in the national security. In both cases Washington seems on the other bank, either uninterested in the same interests or it has the interest in tampering with the stability and provoking dangers against Russia and Europe.

Moscow makes a progress in the Syrian and Iranian titles; it realizes the interaction between them. It still links its answer about the file of the strategic security of Israel which is put by Washington as a priority with an Israeli commitment to a settlement based on the resolutions of the international Security Council and the establishment of a Palestinian state which its capital is Jerusalem and which ensures the right of refugees’ return. While Washington bets on the fact that this speech has become from the past after it got the ensuring of the Arab support for getting out of the Palestinian cause, the acceptance of Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, and the calling of the Palestinians to a settlement under the ceiling of the Israeli security. Moscow tries to separate between the future of Syria, its sovereignty, and its unity and the future of the conflict about the visions to solve the Palestinian cause including the future security of Israel by providing the Syrian state as a mandatory option for all the international and regional players including Washington and Tel Aviv, because the alternative is the rootedness of the Iranian deployment and the presence of the resistance forces as a necessity to support the progress of the Syrian state towards liberating its entire geography.

After accumulating the results of the confrontations in several international and regional overlapped titles Moscow turns to North Korea through a special visit by its Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov to Pyongyang after the North Korean nuclear crisis has done its role in overthrowing the sanctions which are represented today in the US withdrawal from the nuclear understating with Iran with European position that becomes clearer, and after the disputes of negotiation showed the fragility of the American arrogance. The visit seems an occasion to draw the framework of the Korean security guarantees that is conditioned with drawing international framework inspired by the formula of five plus one, and perhaps five plus two by including Japan to the five countries along with Germany in the negotiation with Korea and through presenting the guarantees. The first question which will face Washington in the first meeting of this formation is what are the guarantees in order not to expose the intended understanding to what the understanding with Iran has been exposed to?

China which is involved in the Korean file and in the commercial war and the issues of the regional security with America does not need to the Russian stimulate to be strongly present.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

بين موسكو وواشنطن: تل أبيب وطهران… وبيونغ يانغ

ناصر قنديل

– تدرك الدبلوماسية بواقعية مفهوم موازين القوى وهوامش الحركة، وتتواضع في رسم سقوفها حتى تنمو معادلات القوة فترفعها تدريجاً، كما يقول سلوكها منذ بداية الحرب على سورية بقيادة أميركية، حيث كان سقف موسكو في البداية منع استعمال التفويض الدولي لتدخل عسكري غربي على الطريقة الليبية، وبقي الفيتو في مجلس الأمن الدولي شكل الحضور الأبرز في هذه الحرب، مع القبول سياسياً بسقوف مزعجة لسورية ومخالفة لحقيقة ما تشهده، كحال ما عرف باسم بيان جنيف الأول وما تضمنه من تركيز على بعد داخلي سوري ينتهي بتشكيل هيئة حكم انتقالية. وكانت موسكو واثقة بأن منع التدخل الأميركي العسكري المباشر سيتيح صمود الدولة السورية وبالتالي حدوث الاستعصاء الذي سيفتح باب السياسة الذي فتح لاحقاً فرصة التموضع العسكري الروسي المباشر في الحرب وصولاً لخوضها إلى جانب سورية وحليفيها إيران والمقاومة وتحقيق الانتصارات فيها.

– بالمقابل كانت واشنطن الواقعة تحت غرور القوة، ووهم القدرة على استعمال فائض القوة، وحجم مقدرات الحلف الذي جمعته وراءها، تمارس العنجهية والغطرسة والسقوف المرتفعة، ومن المفيد التذكير أن مصطلحَي، الأيام المعدودة للرئيس السوري، ولن يفلت مِن العقاب مَن يتجاوز الخط الأحمر، هما مصطلحان للرئيس العاقل والمعتدل والواقعي باراك أوباما كما يتم وصفه اليوم مقارنة بالرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب، لأن القضية قضية أميركا وليست قضية أوباما وترامب. فالعقلانية هبطت على أوباما بعد محاولته اختبار القوة بحشد الأساطيل، وبعد فشله في تطويع إيران وابتزازها في ملفها النووي، وخشيته من نفاد الوقت في لعبة العقوبات غير المجدية، بينما إيران تقترب من امتلاك كمية وافية من اليورانيوم المخصب لصناعة أول قنبلة.

– خلال ثلاثين شهراً من الدور العسكري والدبلوماسي في سورية نجحت موسكو برسم سقوف متحركة أنجزت معها توظيف الصمود السوري ودور الحليفين الإيراني وقوى المقاومة لإسقاط الحرب كمفهوم استراتيجي للرهان على وضع اليد على سورية أو جعل تقسيمها مشروعاً مطروحاً على الطاولة. وما بقي من ملف الحرب في سورية صار مرتبطاً بصورة مباشرة بتحديد الإطار الإقليمي لدور سورية بعد استرداد الدولة السورية لكامل جغرافيتها، وهو ما تكشفه سطور المواقف الروسية والأميركية المعلنة. وبينما تحاول واشنطن فرض معادلة إسرائيلية عنوانها لا استقرار لسورية ولا تثبيت لوحدتها مع بقاء حزب الله وإيران على أراضيها، تستدير موسكو لتضع «إسرائيل» المعنية بهذه المعادلة بين خياري، القبول بالتسليم الطوعي باسترداد الدولة السورية جغرافيتها والحصول على ترميم قرار فك الاشتباك ودور الأمم المتحدة على حدود الجولان المحتل، أو الاسترداد القسري سيكون مرافقاً حكماً بدور وانتشار لحزب الله وإيران على هذه الحدود. وفي الحالين تنصح روسيا بالتعاطي مع سورية كدولة سيدة مسؤولة عن أمن جغرافيتها، وترك مبدأ تمركز إيران وحزب الله في سورية كملف سيادي يخص الدولة السورية.

– كما تداخلت تعقيدات التفاوض حول شرعية الدور الإيراني الإقليمي والدولي بملفها النووي، وتداخل الكلام الأميركي والسعودي والإسرائيلي عن الملف النووي بالكلام عن النفوذ الإيراني. كان الانتقال النوعي للدور الروسي في سورية مرتبطاً بإنهاء حلقة هامة من هذه الشرعية الإيرانية التي مثلها التفاهم النووي، بحيث كان التموضع العسكري الروسي لاحقاً لولادة التفاهم بشهرين فقط، كذلك يأتي الانسحاب الأميركي من التفاهم محاولة لإعادة المعادلة إلى ما كانت عليه، لكن لا يمكنك أن تسبح في النهر ذاته مرتين. فما جرى قد جرى، والقوات الروسية صارت في سورية وأنجزت وتغيرت سورية، وهي لم تكن قبل التفاهم، وما عاد ممكناً إعادة عقارب الساعة إلى الوراء. ومن جهة مقابلة، صارت أوروبا شريكاً في التفاهم، وكما يبدو ليس سهلاً سحبها منه، واعتبار أن شيئاً لم يكن. فالتقارب الروسي الأوروبي تحت عنوان حماية التفاهم يفتح أمام موسكو باباً واسعاً لمواصلة استثمارها على مشروع أوراسيا الذي تجذبه مصالح شرق أوسطية مشتركة، وتحكمه مخاوف ومخاطر موحدة في الأمن القومي، وفي الحالتين تبدو واشنطن على الضفة الأخرى، إما غير معنية بالمصالح ذاتها، وإما ذات مصلحة بالعبث بالاستقرار وتصدير المخاطر لكل من روسيا وأوروبا.

– تدير موسكو بالتوازي حقبة الإنجاز في العنوانين السوري والإيراني وتدرك التشابك بينهما، ولا تزال تربط جوابها على ملف الأمن الاستراتيجي لـ«إسرائيل» الذي تضعه واشنطن أولوية بالتزام إسرائيلي بتسوية مؤسسة على قرارات مجلس الأمن الدولي وقيام دولة فلسطينية، عاصمتها القدس، وتضمن حق العودة للاجئين. بينما تراهن واشنطن على أن هذا الكلام أصبح من الماضي بعد ضمان التأييد العربي للخروج من القضية الفلسطينية، وارتضاء اعتبار القدس عاصمة لـ«إسرائيل»، ودعوة الفلسطينيين لتسوية تحت سقف الأمن الإسرائيلي، فتخوض موسكو مشروعاً للفصل بين مستقبل سورية وسيادتها ووحدتها، ومستقبل النزاع حول الرؤى لحل القضية الفلسطينية ومن ضمنها الأمن المستقبلي لـ«إسرائيل»، عبر تقديم الدولة السورية خياراً إلزامياً لكل اللاعبين الدوليين والإقليميين بمن فيهم واشنطن وتل أبيب، لأن البديل هو تجذر الانتشار الإيراني ووجود قوى المقاومة كضرورة لمساندة تقدّم الدولة السورية نحو استرداد جغرافيتها عندما يصير لذلك طريق وحيد هو الحرب.

– تتجه موسكو بالرصيد الذي راكمته من المواجهات في العناوين الدولية والإقليمية المتعددة والمتشعبة والمتداخلة نحو كوريا الشمالية بزيارة نوعية لوزير خارجيتها سيرغي لافروف، قاصداً بيونغ يانغ بعدما أدّت الأزمة النووية الكورية الشمالية دورها في إسقاط فلسفة العقوبات، التي تتفكك جبهتها اليوم مع الانسحاب الأميركي من التفاهم النووي مع إيران بموقف أوروبي يزداد تبلوراً، وبعدما شهدت مشاحنات وتجاذبات التفاوض ما يكفي لتظهير هزال العنجهية الأميركية. والزيارة تبدو مناسبة لرسم إطار الضمانات الأمنية الكورية مشروطاً برسم إطار دولي يستوحي صيغة الخمسة زائداً واحداً، وربما بخمسة زائداً إثنين بضم اليابان إلى الدول الخمسة الكبرى وألمانيا، في التفاوض مع كوريا، وتقديم الضمانات والمطالب لها، وسيكون السؤال الأول بوجه واشنطن في أول لقاء لهذه التشكيلة، هو: ما هي ضمانات أن لا يتعرّض التفاهم المزمع الوصول إليه لما تعرض له التفاهم مع إيران؟

– الصين في الملف الكوري وفي الحرب التجارية وقضايا الأمن الإقليمي مع أميركا لن تحتاج للتحفيز الروسي لتكون حاضرة بقوة.

%d bloggers like this: