Instability in Pyongyang fuels reunification issue

Details

Category: The World

Created on Monday, 17 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 4876

Instability in Pyongyang fuels reunification issue

The idea of reunification on the Korean peninsula has been floated by both Seoul and Pyongyang recently. Meanwhile, questions arise about the extent of Kim Jong Un's power, and whether there has been a de facto coup.

Reunification has found its way into political speeches on both sides of the 38th parallel. At a speech to mark the first anniversary since she took office, South Korean President Park Geun-hye raised eyebrows with her talk of reunification.

Park described the potential "jackpot" that the dawn of a new era on the peninsula would bring about, uniting South Korean technology and North Korean natural resources. A special committee, reporting directly to the president, has been set up to work on "systematic and constructive" proposals for the future.

In the past, South Korea has been worried about the concept of reunification, preferring to put the idea on hold because of the enormous wealth gap between the two countries. However, Seoul would now prefer to see reunification take place sooner rather than later, according to Ian Bremmer, founder of the political risk research and consultancy company Eurasia Group.

The catalysts for Seoul's new way of thinking have, according to Bremmer, been the changes that took place at the top of the leadership in North Korea, as well as a change in its stance towards the South.

In December, Jang Song Thaek, who had been the de facto second-in-command under the late North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, was suddenly arrested and executed.

That development was welcomed by current leader Kim Jong Un in his New Year speech, who went on to stress his openness to the idea of Korean reunification. "We will join hands with anyone who opts to give priority to the nation and wishes for its reunification, regardless of his or her past, and continue to strive for better inter-Korean relations," he said.

The speech was followed shortly after by the first reunions for divided families from the two countries in more than three years. They took place despite the staging of annual joint military maneuvers between the US and South Korea - and the consternation these caused in the North.

Meanwhile, the South has been intently following the situation in the North, to see how the regime consolidates itself after the execution of Jang.

North Korea's "elections" for the Supreme People's Assembly, which took place in March this year, serve as both a census and a rubber stamping process for candidates approved by the regime.

"There will be new delegates elected, between the ages of 30 and 50," said Park Young-ho, of the Korean Institute for Reunification. Since the death of Kim Jong Il, and the coming to power of Kim Jong Un, roughly half of the top 280 party cadres and officials have been removed.

Young Kim as a puppet

The crucial question being asked in Seoul and abroad is, however, whether the young Kim, who is thought to be aged 31, really does hold the reins of power in Pyongyang. Since the shock execution of his uncle, there have been two theories.

According to one of them, Kim has become stronger without his mentor and erstwhile protector. "He has created a coalition, " writes researcher Park Young-ja from the Center for North Korean Studies in Seoul. "He has disciplined the military and brought about a generational change." The other theory is that the regime has become even more unstable, with the execution of Kim's uncle raising doubts about the new leader's absolute power.

A group of North Korea exiles who run the New Focus International website in Seoul claim that, according to information from Pyongyang, Kim is only leader for the sake of appearances.

In reality, he is a figurehead and a stooge for a collective group that serves as the power behind the throne, writes former North Korean propagandist Jang Jin-sung. Shocking as it may be for North Koreans, says Jang, "our country is no longer ruled by a Kim." According to Jang, who fled the North in 2004, Kim is nothing more than the puppet of a secret junta.

The all-powerful ones

Jang claims that it is now the Organization and Guidance Department of the Korean Workers' Party that truly wields the power in Pyongyang. Belonging to the inner circle of power are Kim Kyong-ok, believed to be the most powerful of them, Minister for State Security Kim Won Hong and the recently-elected Hwang Pyong So, who recently appeared in public with Kim Jong Un.

Members of the Kim family and descendants of the "partisan generation," meanwhile, are not among the powerful few. Even Korean Peoples' Army general Chong Ryong Hae, perhaps Kim's closest confidante, must answer to the department.

After taking power in the early nineties, Kim Jong Il built up the department as a secret powerbase through which to exert absolute power, circumventing the official institutions.

It is the department, for example, that appointed all of the highest party cadres and officials. Then, as now, lower officials must submit their regulations, policies and programs to the department for approval. A more recent development, however, is that they are said to report personally - and show their utmost respect.

Coup from the back room

The Organization and Guidance Department's members are also said to be responsible for Jang Song Thaek's fall from grace, as well as his execution, the defectors claim. Having seen his confession on video, Kim Jong Un reportedly wanted his uncle to be spared, and "only" sent to one of North Korea's labor camps.

In an official statement by the politburo, Jang was accused of not accepting the policies and direction of the party. Tellingly, what was missing in that document was the additional clause "under the direction of the Great Leader," which had previously been obligatory.

For New Focus International, there is one clear conclusion; a coup d'etat has taken place. The masterminds of the all-powerful Organization and Guidance Department no longer take orders from Kim Jong Un. While they may tolerate Kim Jong Un as leader, say the defectors, they only do so to consolidate power for themselves.

Date 17.03.2014

Author Martin Fritz / rc

Editor Gabriel Domínguez

Source: Deutsche Welle

No comments

Rawlings condemns double standards of developed countries

Details

Category: The World

Created on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 4321

Rawlings condemns double standards of developed countries

Former President Jerry John Rawlings has condemned what he terms the double standards of the developed countries.

“If the developed countries applied the same level of integrity in their dealings with the developing world, their leadership would not be in question," he said.

According to him, while the developed countries have kept their morals and value systems intact within their nations, those countries adopted different morals towards developing nations, resulting in the developing countries becoming weaker and weaker.

In an interview with the Daily Graphic, President Rawlings recalled what former US Vice President, Mr Dick Cheney, said while he was a Defence Minister that: “America's interest overrides issues of morality.”

President Rawlings said: “The developing world is getting weaker and weaker; of course, you will see a growing infrastructure in Tunisia, Egypt or possibly Libya, but those infrastructures will not be a reflection of the socio-economic justice in the country. On the contrary, they reflect a very corrupt class attempting to rule a discontented and disempowered people,” he said, adding that it appeared the developed countries seemed to profit from the demise of the value systems of the developing countries.

He said Western powers had often interfered, entered and declared war on other countries and left some of them as failed states.

He said the world, particularly the developing nations, wanted to see multiparty democracy at the super-power level.

President Rawlings said following the collapse of the bipolar leadership, and the communist and socialist economic philosophy, the world, especially those in the developing regions, had hoped to see the human face of capitalism “but no, we've ended up with what Pope John Paul appropriately called ‘the savagery of capitalism.’”

According to him, nepotism was at its worst and multiparty democracy had failed to contain corruption, and socio-economic injustice was at its worst.

He said when the West declared war against terrorism, most governments or a few too many governments took the cue from the US and Britain and started persecuting and silencing genuine quests by freedom and justice advocates.

“The manner in which the war in Iraq was prosecuted did the worst damage to human morality or ethics, in the sense that the might of right was subsumed by the right of might. It sent the wrong message to the developing world and a few too many governments (especially in Africa) took advantage of that, and corruption and impunity became the order of the day,” he lamented.

President Rawlings said it was Nelson Mandela whose voice could hold Bush and Blair in check in Iraq.

“The true international appeals to them fell on deaf ears and this was in spite of the fact that they had used the pretext of looking for weapons of njass destruction to enter Iraq. It was the height of impunity to use a false declaration at the UN to enter Iraq,” he said.

President Rawlings was highly uncharitable with France for her growing role in the collapse of the developing world.

“France used to adopt a fairly admirable position and not blindly follow the US and Britain to be declaring wars, but she has abandoned that position and chosen to profit from a Western unipolar power status,” he said.

President Rawlings said France was not only trying to edge out Britain’s influence, but was becoming an overzealous partner to the US.

“We saw that in Libya — the manner in which they flushed out Gaddafi into the hands of his people to be killed like a dog; the misuse of the UN by France in Cote d'Ivoire to not only unseat a government, but to pluck an elected patriotic leader and put him on trial at The Hague," he noted.

President Rawlings said in spite of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bipolar leadership of the world, Russia's undiminished^tatus and the emerging power of China still worried and irritated the US's desire to be at the helm of a sole unipolar power.

He said the world would have accepted America's unipolar leadership if she had not lost the moral high ground.

Source: Daily Graphic

No comments

Why Berlin can't go it alone on Russia

Details

Category: The World

Created on Friday, 14 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 3788

Why Berlin can't go it alone on Russia

Germany’s special ties with Russia give Berlin a crucial role in trying to solve the Crimea Crisis. But that doesn’t mean that Berlin alone can push Moscow to alter its stance, as some media reports insinuate.

Reading analytic pieces by influential international press outlets these days ( here, here, and here) one gets the impression that Berlin is the sole arbiter on Russia and can somehow just wave a magic wand that will make Vladimir Putin reconsider his actions.

It's a catchy idea whose only problem is that it is overly simplistic and thus wrong.

To be clear, Germany has a unique relationship with Russia. As the EU's largest country and biggest economy situated in the center of Europe, it is only natural that Berlin would play a key role in any discussion between the EU and Russia on how to overcome the current crisis.

Beyond that, Germany's own experience in dealing with its eastern half after the fall of Berlin Wall and its close economic and political ties with Russia give it added clout and a big stake in the crisis. Germany imports roughly 40 percent of its oil and gas from Russia, which makes it Berlin's largest energy supplier.

But it's not just Germany that needs Russia. The dependence is mutual. Germany is Russia's third largest trading partner; some 9 billion euros in direct investments and more than 6,000 German companies active in Russia play an important part in the Russian economy.

Joint effort

Notwithstanding that influence, Berlin is simply not the singular external player with the power to persuade Russia to rethink its game. It does not have the economic and political leverage to unilaterally make Moscow change tack anytime soon. Imposing economic sanctions would not only hurt Russia, but also hit the German economy, Europe's growth engine. What's more, sanctions would take time to have an impact, and as important as Germany is economically for Russia, only concerted Western sanctions would do the trick.

"I don't think Germany alone can do this," James F. Collins, US ambassador to the Russian Federation from 1997 to 2001 told DW.

"Honestly, Putin is the only one who can make this crisis go away and he has been remarkably resistant to listening to anybody," noted Olga Oliker, a senior Russia expert with the Rand Corporation in Washington.

While both underscored Germany's central role in solving the Ukraine crisis, they dismissed the narrative that Berlin in and of itself could influence Moscow to change course. "Germany will need to bring along colleagues in the EU and be part of a larger community to be influential," said Collins. "And I think it will also be influential to the extent Washington and Berlin are on the same page."

Leadership question

The claim made in recent press coverage that the US has abdicated its leadership role on Ukraine to Germany is as naïve as is the idea that we are on the brink of a "Russo-German Europe."

The more sober, if less juicy description, of how Europe and the US deal with Russia and the Ukraine is that of close cooperation that involves a division of labor as evidenced this week.

While German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the crisis with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama hosted Ukraine's interim prime minister in a high profile Oval Office meeting. And in what has been billed as a last chance to avert a further escalation of the crisis before the Crimea referendum, US Secretary of State John Kerry met his Russian counterpart in London on Friday.

"The reality is it's a kind of complimentary activity," said Collins. Washington is deeply engaged in the Ukraine crisis diplomatically and militarily. But the fact is that Ukraine and Crimea are simply not geopolitical priorities for the United States and that Washington's economic exposure to Russia and the region is considerably weaker than that of Germany and the EU.

Matter of principle

"For the United States Ukraine is far from a vital interest," notes Oliker. "For Europe and for Germany it is much more of one due to proximity, due to gas pipelines and due to just a much closer economic relationship with Russia. For the United States it's a matter of principle and certainly Europe as a whole is a vital interest of the United States."

Neither Germany, the EU nor the US have a silver bullet that can coerce Russia to change course on Ukraine anytime soon. In the long-run however, a joint, coordinated effort that may well involve meaningful sanctions by all three parties is the best option to make Moscow reconsider its game.

Date 14.03.2014

Author Michael Knigge

Editor Rob Mudge

Source: Deutsche Welle

No comments

Death row inmate Glenn Ford released

Details

Category: Law & Justice

Created on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 3876

Death row inmate Glenn Ford released

30 years after wrongful conviction

Man found guilty of murder by all-white jury in deeply flawed trial had one of America’s longest-ever waits for exoneration

Ed Pilkington in New York

Glenn Ford has been freed from the notorious Angola prison in Louisiana having lived under the shadow of the death sentence for 30 years. He becomes one of the longest-serving death row inmates in US history to be exonerated.

Ford was released on the order of a judge in Shreveport after Louisiana state prosecutors indicated they could no longer stand by his conviction. In late 2013 the state notified Ford’s lawyers that a confidential informant had come forward with new information implicating another man who had been among four co-defendants originally charged in the case.

He was sentenced to death in 1984 for the murder the previous November of Isadore Rozeman, an older white man who ran a Shreveport jewellery and watch repair shop. The defendant had worked as an odd jobs man for Rozeman. In interviews with police Ford said that he had been asked to pawn a .38 revolver and some jewellery similar to that taken from Rozeman’s shop at the time of the murder by another man who was among the initial suspects.

Asked as he walked away from the prison gates about his release, Ford told WAFB-TV, “It feels good; my mind is going in all kind of directions. It feels good.”

Ford said he did harbour some resentment at being wrongly jailed: “Yeah, cause I’ve been locked up almot 30 years for something I didn’t do.

“I can’t go back and do anything I should have been doing when I was 35, 38, 40 stuff like that.”

Ford’s conviction bears all the hallmarks of the glaring inconsistencies and inadequacies of the US justice system that are repeatedly found in cases of exoneration. The fact that despite serious qualms among top judges about his conviction this innocent man was kept on death row for so long is certain to be seized upon by anti-death penalty campaigners.

Among the many all too typical problems with his prosecution was the composition of the jury. An African American, Ford was sentenced to death by a jury that had been carefully selected by prosecutors to be exclusively white.

His legal representation at trial was woefully inexperienced. The lead defence counsel was a specialist in the law relating to oil and gas exploration and had never tried a case in front of a jury; the second attorney was two years out of law school and working at the time of the trial on small automobile accident insurance cases.

At the trial the state was unable to call any eyewitnesses to the crime, nor was it able to produce a murder weapon. Instead Ford was convicted largely on the testimony of a witness who was not a detached observer – she was the girlfriend of another man initially suspected of the murder.

Under cross-examination the witness, Marvella Brown, admitted in front of the jury that she had given false testimony. “I did lie to the court… I lied about it all,” she said.

In another classic element frequently found in exoneration cases, cod science provided by “expert” witnesses also helped to put Ford on death row. One such expert testified that the evidence pointed to the defendant because he was left-handed; another expert told the jury that particles of gunshot residue had been found on his hand; and a third talked about fingerprint evidence implicating him.

The testimony from all three expert witnesses was later shown to have been at best inconclusive, at worst wrong.

Ford continued to profess his innocence throughout the 30 years. In the appeal process that ensued, the Louisiana supreme court, the state’s highest legal panel, acknowledged that the evidence against him was “not overwhelming” and that the prosecution case was open to “serious questions”, yet it decided to keep him on death row.

More recently it emerged that state prosecutors had failed to disclose evidence to Ford’s legal team that could have been crucial in his defence. It included evidence from confidential informants pointing the finger at Ford’s co-defendants, who faced initial charges that were then dismissed as the prosecution bore down against the wrong man.

In a statement Ford’s current lawyers, Gary Clements and Aaron Novod, said they were pleased by the exoneration. “We are particularly grateful that the prosecution and the court moved ahead so decisively to set Mr Ford free.”

Ford becomes the 144th death row inmate to be exonerated over the past four decades.

Source: The Guardian UK

No comments