Thoughts on some of the consequences of a war with North Korea

There are a number of tensions growing in the world today - many of those are associated with the USA's 45th President (who I'll refer to in this post as US45). Of those, there are some tensions inside the US, but those matters seem to be being ignored or denied by US45: that "water off a duck's back” approach is significant, in the context of this post, as, elsewhere in  history, leaders who have been sensitive to such pressures have welcomed a war outside the nation as a marvellous distraction (I'll suggest Thatcher and the Falklands as an example, knowing that the example is arguable - and that the example may more appropriately be cited for the Argentinian side). In this instance, any war that US45 gets into is likely to be because he considers such to be "right" - the increased involvement against violent extremists in Syria (and, to some extent, Iraq) is one such example.

That leads into the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) - i.e., North Korea.

POTUS45 has made it clear that he thinks North Korea is "bad" (along with Iran), largely over the development of nuclear weapons. That apprehension is shared by other US administrations, and most of the world. What is new is the level of rhetoric that US45 is using, with quite strong threats of physical action.

I'm not in the USA, so I get my news second hand, but I have the impression that the rhetoric against North Korea is more intense than that against both violent extremists, which US45 has acted on (by stepping up an existing military involvement), and Iran. Given that, the equally bellicose blusterings from North Korea's new leader, who appears to be seeking to establishing himself as the DPRK's strongest leader yet, and some experts pronouncements that war with the DPRK is imminent following their most recent ballistic missile tests, I have concerns that there is a risk of war.

The elephant in the room here is China.

The USA's miscalculation - despite warnings (see here and here) - during the Korean War that invading the North would not lead to Chinese involvement was disastrously wrong, and led to that war being prolonged by years and millions of deaths - and the cementing into place of the Kim dynasty. Had that invasion not taken place, I suspect more reasonable leadership MAY have eventually taken over the DPRK.

In the present decade, China has been slow to realise the depths of concern of the rest of the world - not only the USA, and thus has been somewhat tokenistic, I consider, in wielding its influence over the DPRK. It is only in recent months, for instance, that China has started to more genuinely impose sanctions. However, I suspect China still doesn't appreciate the reality of the risk of war, and that said war could result in China having US forces on its border - unless it again stepped in to support the DPRK, which could escalate to World War III. (There is no possibility of the DPRK winning, but it would be an extremely bloody war.)

(On the DPRK's part, they have learned the lessons of the Philippines, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan [although, ironically, attempts to be more respectful of locals may have limited the effectiveness of that invasion, in that the key target person escaped] and Iraq, which is why they are so determined to have an effective nuclear deterrent. A recent suggestion that I read for China to guarantee that nuclear deterrent on condition that the DPRK dismantle its programme could  provide the conditions for peace ... but I doubt anyone would be interested in that - sadly.)

There is another aspect to this, which the USA's long history of losing the peace.

In the documentary "No End in Sight", there is a comment made that the occupation of Germany after World War Part Two was three years in the planning, as opposed to the negligible planning for the 2003 Iraq invasion. (I am still staggered that ANYONE could believe the so obviously lacking in credibility claims before that war!) I suspect that US45 and his administration would put even less thought into the aftermath of a war with the DPRK.

The failure to think before the 2003 invasion of Iraq led directly to the near two decades of war in that region, including the rise of Da'esh. What would a similar lack of forethought do to East Asia and the world?
One of the saddest aspects of this is that it is quite clear, particularly from the documentary I refer to above, that the USA - and other nations, in my view - have the capacity to prevent the disaster of "losing the peace", if only the experts  would be genuinely listened to.

How the USA contributed to the genocide of the Rohingya

One of the reasons that the USA considers itself to be exceptional is that it looks at the best of itself, and ignores the worst - a flaw common to almost all other nations (and people), including my own. (Germany may be an exception to this, as it has been forced to look at its worst as a result of the Holocaust – although that soul searching has not expunged the evil from all of its people; my nation has yet to properly address, amongst other matters, the horrors that were committed against the original inhabitants of this land – people who had, for tens of thousands of years, an advanced and mostly sustainable civilisation.)

In the case of the USA, the end of World War Part One gives a good example of this.

On the one hand, their President at that time, Woodrow Wilson, expounded an idealistic and admirable goal – world peace without, in effect, too many empires …

On the other hand, factional politics and the arrogant trivialisation of the concept of “American exceptionalism” down to a belief that accountability should not apply to the USA led to, effectively, the deliberate sabotage of the concept and realisation of a League of Nations – much as the evil and divisive Senator McCarthy undermined, almost to the point of sabotage, the United Nations in the 1950s when his investigations effectively removed many talented people from that organisation.

With great power comes great duty to “do good” … and an equal duty to be accountable.

There have been times when the USA has undoubtedly done “great good” – the Marshall Plan after World War Part Two, some of President Kennedy’s initiatives and actions (e.g., this, this, this, this, this, this, and this) and his inspiring speeches (e.g., this), standing up for South Korea during the Korean War, and some of the advances it has been behind – such as the Green Revolution.

There have also been exemplary occasions of accountability – such as the holding of former President Nixon to account which began with the Watergate scandal, Contragate, and (arguably) the response to the GFC.

There have also been times of short-sightedness and abuses – such as extending the duration and scope of the Korean War by invading the North, the Viêt Nám War, financial ideology that led to crisis in Russia, the GFC and the worst of the World Bank, and the rampant social injustice inside the USA, including racism (racism and civil rights generally were notable weaknesses – amongst others - of Kennedy’s presidency).

The USA’s misplaced belief that it was so exceptional that it didn’t have to be accountable led to it refusing to be part of any international court that could put its soldiers on trial – no matter how many abuses they may have committed (e.g., here and here - and I am aware of similar crimes possibly committed by my nation [e.g., here, and here - and an uncle who fought in New Guinea in the Second World War talked of not bringing back prisoners), and thus it backed  out of the ICC (see Chapter 10 of Geoffrey Robertson’s “Crimes Against Humanity: the Struggle for Global Justice”, 3^rd Ed. [I haven’t seen the later edition], The New Press, New York, 2006 [first pub. Allen Lane, 1999]; ISBN-13 978-1-59558-071-9; Amazon), and, as a result of that and other politics, the ICC is only applicable to nations that are members of it – which excludes both the USA and Burma (I will not use the term Myanmar until that nation is a true democracy).

Thus, the mechanism for holding Burma to account for its genocide against the Rohingya people (actually, there is an argument that this is the second genocide, with the first being when they were driven out by the abuses after Burma’s 1785 invasion and annexation of Aurukun) of taking them before the ICC has been removed - and thus the tile of this post.

Had the USA been less intransigent, there is a possibility (albeit a very, very, SMALL possibility) that the remit of the ICC may have held nations such as Burma to account more readily.

So, as the situation currently is, the main accountability of Burma is under the 1948 Genocide Convention, which has reached the status of customary international law and sets initial responsibility with “a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed” (i.e., Burma, which is still denying that it has done any such thing) or “by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction”. As a back-up: “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III” – which, as I understand it, means the International Court of Justice, although I am unclear who can initiate such proceedings.

I had thought about whether the situation is a threat to international peace and stability (which would allow the UN to - under Chapter VII of the Charter - take action): it could be argued to creating a risk of instability through the impact on Bangladesh, but that is a bit tenuous.

The provisions of the Responsibility to Protect  principle are clearly being breached, but, since the 1990s intervention in the Balkans (which was actually prior to formalisation of the R2P principle), that has been  toothless (although it has led to an excellent source of information on risks).

That leaves us with the Genocide Convention ...

In terms of taking action as an individual:

• I’ve written to the ICC, asking if the Prosecutor would initiate a preliminary investigation under Article 15 Section (1) (“The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”) of the Rome Statute, with a reply confirming that they couldn’t;
• I’ve written to my nation’s government, respectfully urging them to disengage with the Burmese military (no reply or even an acknowledgement); and
• I am now considering writing to the UN Secretary-General, who, under Chapter XV of the UN Charter, “may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security” (Article 99), and raising both that, the Genocide Convention, and – in a hope to embarrass the world into action - the currently tattered status of the R2P commitment. Unfortunately, because I am not an official representative of a member nation, that will probably not get anywhere (but I will try, via the special advisors email, given the limitations of the only contact form I could find) … so … what nation (I’ll try mine, but have considerable doubts) will have enough integrity to raise the issue of the current genocide of the Rohingya with the UN? Perhaps Germany, or one of the Scandinavian nations?

Just in case anyone else is interested, my current draft emails are below.If I can work out a nation likely to make a referral to the UN, I'll write to them as well ...

Draft email to the UN:

To:

His Excellency António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations

CC:

   Mr Adama Dieng, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide

   Mr Ivan Šimonović, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect

Your Excellency,

Re: The Current Apparent Genocide by Myanmar Against the Rohingya

I, and many other people in the world, hold grave concerns over what is happening to the Rohingya people of Myanmar, which does appear to be genocide - or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing. (I am particularly concerned at the possible risk of a breach of the principle of non-refoulement in the recent agreement to return the Rohingya to a nation which does not admit their existence, and from which they are still fleeing.)

I am aware that these events are outside the remit of the International Criminal Court, but, as I understand it, the 1948 Genocide Convention and the commitment to Responsibility to Protect contained in A/RES/60/1 (although I am aware many have concerns over limited application of that principle) would apply (and perhaps also Chapter VII of the UN Charter, given the potentially destabilising impact of these events on Bangladesh).

In light of that, has any preventative or responsive action against Myanmar been considered by the United Nations (including the Security Council), or proposed by any Member State or yourself (under Section XV)? (I am aware of the outstanding aid that has been given to Rohingya refugees, including via the Central Emergency Response Fund, under incredibly difficult conditions and timelines.)

I appreciate that you are extremely busy, but any advice (that can be given without endangering any “backroom” negotiations) would be appreciated – or, perhaps more appropriately, a public statement on the actions which are available.

Yours respectfully

 Draft email to Members of Parliament in my nation:

To:

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP, Prime Minister

The Hon. Julie Bishop, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Hon. Bill Shorten, MP, Leader of the Opposition

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs

Dear Members of Parliament,

On top of the largest number of displaced people since the end of World War Two, the world is currently facing an event which is either the worst genocide since Rwanda, or at the very least the worst ethnic cleansing since the Balkan Wars in the 1990s: the displacement of the Rohingya, who are fleeing violence in Myanmar.

I am aware that Australia has provided aid, and I have taken advantage of the current pledge to match donations.

I consider, however, that the situation is too catastrophic for our assistance to be limited to aid.

I am aware that these events are outside the remit of the International Criminal Court, but, as I understand it, the 1948 Genocide Convention and the commitment to Responsibility to Protect contained in A/RES/60/1 would apply, and perhaps also Chapter VII of the UN Charter, given the potentially destabilising impact of these events on the region.

Has any consideration been given to a formal referral of this matter to the United Nations or its Security Council?

Yours faithfully, 

Some more thoughts on crime

I’ve been watching the third season of a police procedural set in Europe (which, sadly, is not as good as the first two, although it is still better than most such series set in the USA), and that led me to thinking – again - about how society approaches crime.

As I see it, the basic problem is one of security – which is more than just personal safety (to paraphrase the police, it is more than “safety of the person”), it is also having a sense of security with regard to possessions. The latter is a key part of our psychological wellbeing – we need security for our personal stuff; it is also, to some extent, part of the complex issues about most people’s motivation to work and earn money so one can have “nice things” (including a nice home). Overall, although that security can become a harmful greed, society functions better when people safe – and that includes bringing out the best in interpersonal interactions.

I’ve come across many people in the personal growth field who place a great deal of emphasis on overcoming hardship, being generous when one is under pressure, and the like: I’m less convinced of the value of that as a personal philosophy these days, and am actively anti it in the context of how society should be.

Just as people learn best under better – not harsher - education conditions, so too do the interpersonal interactions that build society foster a better society when they are conducted under more secure settings – which covers freedom from discrimination, material security, and security against crime.

There are, of course, more threats to this effectiveness of society (and thus of its individuals) than only crime.

On a large scale, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones/typhoons, etc) and disease outbreaks (such as the West African Ebola  outbreak a few years ago, the flu pandemic after World War (part) One, or the plague that hit Europe centuries ago) can cause devastation. However, it is possible to promote resilience ahead of such events – as we are slowly learning in response to the other largescale disaster of this age, which is climate change.

That resilience lies in having adequate resources, and adequate forethought (better preparation ahead of time in East Africa has enabled better containment of Ebola events there, compared to the West African outbreak) – which I will come back to.

I also include socially cause problems, such as wars or economic disasters (e.g., the Great Depression, or it’s lesser cousin, the Global Financial Crisis) in this category, for the purposes of this article.

On a personal scale, there are other disasters which can cause devastation: major illness – of oneself, or a love one, accidental injury or death, or financial problems (e.g., as a result of loss of a job).

Crime fits into this category of personal disaster – or potentially personal disaster, given that some crime may be relatively minor in its impact.

The impact that crime has depends on two aspects: the severity of the crime (murder is more severe than being sworn at, although both are crimes), and how prepared (resilient, to use the latest buzz word) one is.

Now, on that latter point, while one can be prepared in the sense of having insurance, just as one can have insurance and other preparation (e.g., see here) for natural disasters, one of the major issues is psychological.

If you have a somewhat naïve or overly idealistic viewpoint, and see the world as being without threat, experiencing crime may be a major psychological blow, as it undermines and even attacks your personal worldview. If you have a worldview that relies on having lots of possessions, or having possessions that are flashier (or, to choose a kinder but very subjective word, “nicer”) than other peoples’, crimes such as theft are a similar blow against your sense of self-worth.

Finally, if you experience injury, or perhaps even death (e.g., murder of a loved one or family member – and, incidentally, I have had a niece murdered, albeit one who was distant owing to my adoption and various other family events), the event will be as devastating “to the person” as any of the larger events.

The extent of that devastation, or those personal blows in general, will depend on a range of matters, such as how well prepared one is psychologically. As I write that, I think of the challenge to parents in striking a balance between teaching “stranger danger” and developing the ability to interact with newly met people to young children: there is a similar balancing act with regard to crime. I shudder to admit it, but the trite summation with regard to violent extremist threats of being “alert, but not alarmed”, is probably the most apt presentation of that balancing act with regard to crime (and is probably most difficult to achieve and maintain for those to whom we give the social duty of guarding us against crime: police – which I will come back to later).

If we are not prepared for crime, which is a failure of both parents and society, it is likely that our reaction will be harsh. We will have been made afraid and/or hurt, and thus may lash out – we will want to see those who did us wrong suffer as we did, a human, and thus understandable, but nevertheless wrong, reaction.

Why is it wrong?

Because it fails to address the true causes and thus does NOT prevent future crime, and such reactions divide society into haves and have nots who are warring under what is often termed “the law of the jungle”.

Now, at this point I will digress to emphasise that it IS important – vital, actually – that justice be done, and that it be SEEN to be done. Such is necessary for the security (including both the sense of security, and the deterrent effect – which does not apply to all crimes) of society, and for promoting the healing of the victims. I read an opinion that jail is solely about preventing harm to society, and that is utterly wrong: jail is also about punishment, healing and deterrence.

Going back to the issue of being prepared, my view is that people in modern Western societies need to be better prepared for a whole host of things, including natural disasters (where are the cyclone warnings we used to have when I was a kid in Queensland?), the possibility of personal events that are calamitous (such as accident or injury or large scale disaster or some other event – and I recall a senior engineer I knew some years ago waffling on about life planning to young female engineers, and not even thinking about the possibility of becoming pregnant: if he had, he would probably have made some glib comment about abortion), including crime.

Part of that preparation should include being given a basic familiarity with laws (especially those relating to property boundaries, discrimination, and slander/defamation), and also the purpose and mechanics of society’s judicial system.

Many victim advocacy groups are acting from the point of pain of victims, and lose sight of risks such as creating a “law of the jungle” effect - just as many human rights organisations act from the latter perspective, and do not acknowledge the very real pain and need for healing that victims of crime are experiencing (the idiotic professor pronouncing that jail was not about punishment is the pinnacle of the latter).

As a society, we need better than those two polarised positions – and that need for better tends, sadly, to be brought undone by the political advantages of “tough on crime” approaches.

I’ve advocated – unsuccessfully – for the creation of a position of “Chief Criminologist”, much as we have an expert position of Chief Scientist, to work towards giving society the better approach to crime that we need. For the rest of this article, I want to give some thoughts on what such an office could possibly advocate for.

The first is better preparation, as alluded to above. Better parenting on the topic is a key issue, and that has to include giving a truthful commentary on the causes of crime – crimes are not committed solely by people who are “weak” or “bad”: crimes are also committed by people who trying to survive, responding to having been abuse as a child (which can lead to problems such as drug addiction), people who were taught that being a criminal is “good” (e.g., that is a rebellion against authority, or the rich, or that it is part of “family first” or “look after yourself first” [both of which really mean no-one else matters at all), unthinking people acting on a dare or in response to peer influence whipping itself into a crescendo of outdoing each other, and so on.

The next topic is prevention.

There is a balance to be kept in mind here between reasonable personal security measures, and a level of paranoia that starts to harm society by impeding its effectiveness, or by promoting division (such as haves vs. have-nots – and on that, it wouldn’t hurt some haves to NOT flaunt their wealth, which I view as a deliberate attempt to belittle and thus cause emotional harm to other people).

Having made that point, preventive measures that are worth considering include:

• better parental and societal education on the topic, as discussed above;
• more jobs, which has consistently been shown to be the best measure to prevent crime;
• promoting good relationships – I’ve seen having kids has tame several criminally inclined idiots;
• allowing risk and testing themselves amongst those teenagers who need it, rather than helicopter parenting them into rebelling with their peers against all that their parents stand for (there’s a big series of posts in that topic!);
• making society fairer (i.e., more equitable); and
• reining in advertising and culture that promotes consumerism and excessive materialism – which change would also be good for the environment.

The third topic I wish to address in this section of this article is the mechanics of the justice system, which, in my opinion, requires:

• laws that are effective, being neither tools for vengeance nor based on false or divisive perspectives. It is important, when crafting such laws, to listen to experts (provided they are unbiased) about the details, and to be aware and wary of anything which may enshrine “law of the jungle” type thinking;
• police to have adequate resources and a sense of confidence free of all arrogance (a freedom which, I suspect, requires empathy and compassion), and more breaks from their work than other professions, so that they become burned out – which is something that is a harm to them individually, and also reduces their effectiveness and increases the temptation to go outside the law;
• court systems need to be truly independent (Geoffrey  Robertson writes well about that in "Crimes Against Humanity" [4th ed., which I don't have yet, here]) and adequately resourced. In addition, those going into the court system need to understand what can happen (such as “no win, no fee” not meaning you won’t have to pay anything, as you could have to the other side’s fees) and what will happen – beforehand (consider: you don’t tell someone after a cyclone to fill containers with potable water in case the water supply is cut … );
• jails – which are a deterrent for some – must also consider that they are exemplars of the rest of society, and thus must reflect decency, unless they want to portray society as being cruel and inhumane. In addition, for the long term benefit of society, including the promotion of society as being a place worth living in, prisoners must be treated well (e.g., strip searches are a form of sexual assault, and do cause suicide, and must NOT be used excessively), genuine efforts at rehabilitation (which often starts with education) MUST be a core part of the system, which MUST be free of the barbarity of the infamous Standford experiment;
• the arrogance of many individuals and parts of the system must be remedied: the judicial system exists to SERVE society and make both society, and the world the society exists in, a better place – which is not done by being unreasonably demanding of respect to the point of subservience, nor by harshness mis-portrayed as “strength” (although firmness is required), nor acting as an agent of vengeance.

And finally, to get a sense of perspective on this topic, consider this article on why Superman was wasting his talents.