Connect with us

News

Is it time to accept North Korea is a nuclear power? | CNN

Published

on

Is it time to accept North Korea is a nuclear power? | CNN


Seoul, South Korea
CNN
 — 

As a press release of intent, it was about as blunt as they get.

North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and can by no means give them up, its chief, Kim Jong Un, advised the world final month.

The transfer was “irreversible,” he mentioned; the weapons signify the “dignity, physique, and absolute energy of the state” and Pyongyang will proceed to develop them “so long as nuclear weapons exist on Earth.”

Kim could also be no stranger to colourful language, however it’s value taking his vow – which he signed into legislation – severely. Keep in mind that this can be a dictator who can’t be voted out of energy and who typically does what he says he’ll do.

Advertisement

Keep in mind too that North Korea has staged a report variety of missile launches this yr – greater than 20; claims it’s deploying tactical nuclear weapons to area items, one thing CNN can not independently affirm; and can be believed to be prepared for a seventh underground nuclear take a look at.

All this has prompted a rising variety of consultants to query whether or not now could be the time to name a spade a spade and settle for that North Korea is the truth is a nuclear state. Doing so would entail giving up as soon as and for all of the optimistic – some would possibly say delusional – hopes that Pyongyang’s program is someway incomplete or that it would but be persuaded to provide it up voluntarily.

As Ankit Panda, a Stanton senior fellow within the nuclear coverage program on the Carnegie Endowment for Worldwide Peace, put it: “We merely should deal with North Korea as it’s, quite than as we want it to be.”

From a purely factual standpoint, North Korea has nuclear weapons, and few who observe occasions there intently dispute that.

A current Nuclear Pocket book column from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that North Korea might have produced sufficient fissile materials to construct between 45 and 55 nuclear weapons. What’s extra, the current missile checks recommend it has quite a lot of strategies of delivering these weapons.

Advertisement

Publicly acknowledging this actuality is, nonetheless, fraught with peril for nations equivalent to the US.

Probably the most compelling causes for Washington not to take action is its fears of sparking a nuclear arms race in Asia.

South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are just some of the neighbors that will doubtless wish to match Pyongyang’s standing.

However some consultants say that refusing to acknowledge North Korea’s nuclear prowess – within the face of more and more apparent proof on the contrary – does little to reassure these nations. Somewhat, the impression that allies have their heads within the sand might make them extra nervous.

Advertisement

“Let’s settle for (it), North Korea is a nuclear arms state, and North Korea has all crucial supply techniques together with fairly environment friendly ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles),” mentioned Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin College in Seoul and a preeminent tutorial authority on North Korea.

A greater method, some recommend, is likely to be to deal with North Korea’s nuclear program in an analogous strategy to Israel’s – with tacit acceptance.

That’s the answer favored by Jeffrey Lewis, an adjunct professor on the James Martin Middle for Nonproliferation Research on the Middlebury Institute of Worldwide Research in Monterey.

“I believe that the essential step that (US President Joe) Biden must take is to clarify each to himself and to the US authorities that we aren’t going to get North Korea to disarm and that’s basically accepting North Korea as a nuclear state. You don’t essentially have to legally acknowledge it,” Lewis mentioned.

Each Israel and India provide examples of what the US might aspire to in coping with North Korea, he added.

Advertisement
North Korea held what it called

Israel, broadly believed to have began its nuclear program within the Nineteen Sixties, has all the time claimed nuclear ambiguity whereas refusing to be a celebration to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas India embraced nuclear ambiguity for many years earlier than abandoning that coverage with its 1998 nuclear take a look at.

“In each of these instances, the US knew these nations had the bomb, however the deal was, if you happen to don’t speak about it, if you happen to don’t make a difficulty out of it, if you happen to don’t trigger political issues, then we’re not going to reply. I believe that’s the identical place we wish to get to with North Korea,” Lewis mentioned.

At current although, Washington reveals no indicators of abandoning its method of hoping to steer Pyongyang to surrender its nukes.

Certainly, US Vice President Kamala Harris underlined it throughout a current go to to the DMZ, the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.

“Our shared objective – the US and the Republic of Korea – is a whole denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” Harris mentioned.

Advertisement

That could be a worthy objective, however many consultants see it as more and more unrealistic.

“No person disagrees that denuclearization could be a really fascinating consequence on the Korean Peninsula, it’s merely not a tractable one,” Panda mentioned.

One downside standing in the way in which of denuclearization is that Kim’s doubtless greatest precedence is making certain the survival of his regime.

And if he wasn’t paranoid sufficient already, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (wherein a nuclear energy has attacked a non-nuclear energy) can have served as a well timed reinforcement of his perception that “nuclear weapons are the one dependable assure of safety,” mentioned Lankov, from Kookmin College.

A TV screen at a railway station in Seoul, South Korea, shows an image of a North Korean missile launch on October 10, 2022.

Attempting to persuade Kim in any other case appears a non-starter, as Pyongyang has made clear it is not going to even think about partaking with a US administration that wishes to speak about denuclearization.

Advertisement

“If America desires to speak about denuclearization, (North Korea is) not going to speak and if the People aren’t speaking, (North Korea) will launch increasingly missiles and higher and higher missiles,” Lankov mentioned. “It’s a easy alternative.”

There’s additionally the issue that if North Korea’s more and more involved neighbors conclude Washington’s method goes nowhere, this would possibly itself deliver in regards to the arms race the US is so eager to keep away from.

Cheong Seong-chang, a senior researcher on the Sejong Institute, a Korean assume tank, is among the many rising variety of conservative voices calling for South Korea to construct its personal nuclear weapons program to counter Pyongyang’s.

Efforts to forestall North Korea creating nuclear weapons have “resulted in failure,” he mentioned, “and even now, pursuing denuclearization is like chasing a miracle.”

Nonetheless, nonetheless distant the denuclearization dream appears, there are those that say the choice – of accepting North Korea’s nuclear standing, nonetheless subtly – could be a mistake.

Advertisement

“We (could be) principally (saying to) Kim Jong Un, in spite of everything of this tug of warfare and rustling, (that) you’re simply going to get what you need. The larger query (then) after all is: the place does that depart the whole area?” mentioned Soo Kim, a former CIA officer who’s now a researcher at US assume tank RAND Company.

That leaves one different possibility open to the Biden administration and its allies, although it’s one which will appear unlikely within the present local weather.

They might pursue a deal wherein Pyongyang presents to freeze its arms improvement in return for sanctions aid.

In different phrases, not 1,000,000 miles away from the deal Kim supplied then US President Donald Trump at their summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February 2019.

This selection has its backers. “A freeze is a extremely stable strategy to begin issues out. It’s very laborious to do away with weapons that exist, however what is feasible … is to forestall issues from getting worse. It takes among the strain off and it opens up house for different kinds of negotiations,” mentioned Lewis of the James Martin Middle.

Advertisement

Nonetheless, the Trump-era overtones would possibly make this a non-starter. Requested if he thought President Biden would possibly think about this tactic, Lewis smiled and mentioned, “I’m a professor, so I specialise in giving recommendation that nobody is ever going to take.”

However even when the Biden administration was so inclined, that ship might have sailed; the Kim of 2019 was way more prepared to interact than the Kim of 2022.

And that, maybe, is the largest downside on the coronary heart of all of the choices on the desk: they depend on some type of engagement with North Korea – one thing solely missing at current.

Kim is now targeted on his five-year plan for army modernization introduced in January 2021 and no presents of talks from the Biden administration or others have but turned his head within the slightest.

As Panda acknowledged, “There’s a set of cooperative choices which might require the North Koreans being prepared to take a seat down on the desk and speak about a few of these issues with us. I don’t assume that we’re even near sitting down with the North Koreans.”

Advertisement

And, in equity to Kim, the reticence will not be all right down to Pyongyang.

“Massive coverage shifts within the US would require the President’s backing, and I actually see no proof that Joe Biden actually sees the North Korean situation as deserving of large political capital,” Panda mentioned.

He added what many consultants imagine – and what even some US and South Korean lawmakers admit behind closed doorways: “We will likely be residing with a nuclear armed North Korea in all probability for a couple of a long time to come back no less than.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Saying ‘No’ to Musk

Published

on

Saying ‘No’ to Musk

They have laid off their own workers. They have reshuffled their departments’ priorities. They have taken aim at D.E.I.

But, after weeks of walking in lock step with the White House, some cabinet officials and other high-level Trump appointees have balked at a directive from Elon Musk.

The episode — which began on Saturday with a demand by Musk, posted on X, that federal employees either sum up a week’s worth of their accomplishments by email or resign — morphed into a rare display of defiance in the highest ranks of the administration. And it became something of an effort to rein in Musk’s power in real time.

Senior officials at the State Department, the F.B.I., the Energy Department and other agencies told their employees to hold off on responding to Musk’s message. Some of the agencies refusing to comply are run by close Trump allies like Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard and Pam Bondi.

Those officials didn’t specifically confront Musk. A note that went to some employees at the Justice Department said they should ignore the request “due to the confidential and sensitive nature of the department’s work,” according to an email obtained by my colleague Cecilia Kang.

Advertisement

And the spat over an email is far less intense than the dissent from some rank-and-file workers that my colleagues Nicholas Nehamas, Ryan Mac and Nikole Hannah-Jones covered over the weekend.

But inherent in those agency leaders’ refusal to comply was a clear message: My agency reports to me, not to Elon Musk.

Trump, who sometimes encourages his advisers to duke it out in public, has done little to settle the matter. He praised Musk’s message today, and said employees who don’t answer would be “sort of semi-fired, or you’re fired.” But around the same time, my colleague Michael Shear wrote, the Office of Personnel Management told agencies that responding to the email is now voluntary.

Is that clear?

As we’ve noted before, Musk has been benefiting from the confusing, amorphous nature of his role. He was not confirmed by the Senate and he has no job description. It is not clear whether or not he will attend Trump’s first cabinet meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday.

Advertisement

But the internal resistance to his message suggests there is at least some willingness among cabinet members to define his role by saying what he can’t do.

  • Elon Musk personally called the leader of the hard-right Alternative for Germany party to congratulate her on the party’s gains in last weekend’s election — but she slept through the call.

  • Some of the voters flooding Republicans’ town halls to complain about the Trump administration’s early moves are specifically citing Musk.

  • Meanwhile, he lost a battle in the fight over access to government data. A federal judge barred his team from student loan databases.

  • And it is not just a court throwing up roadblocks. After Musk told federal workers to send an email explaining their work or resign, several members of President Trump’s cabinet told their employees to ignore it. We’ve got more on the confusion and division below.


MEANWHILE on X

Musk’s X feed suggests he is feeling the pushback. My colleague Kate Conger explains.

On Monday, Musk shared posts that pointed to a poll showing Americans broadly support a “full-scale effort” to eliminate waste and fraud in government.

Musk claimed this was an endorsement of his work: “Polls show that @DOGE is overwhelmingly POPULAR and that government spending should be reduced by at least $1 trillion!!” he wrote.

Advertisement

Polls that ask specifically about Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, however, are far more mixed.

Musk also tried to brush off his controversial missive to workers across the federal government as overblown. “Absurd that a 5 min email generates this level of concern!,” he posted, along with a video featuring Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman, talking about slashing the ranks of the federal government.

Musk also seemed concerned with showing off his support from the one voter who matters most: Trump. He shared clips from today’s news conference, in which the president praised Musk’s work.

“Great President,” Musk wrote in response.

Kate Conger

Advertisement

AGENCY STATUS REPORT

On Friday, we told you about layoffs at the Food and Drug Administration that set back the agency’s recent efforts to keep up with medical technology. My colleague Christina Jewett reports that many of those specialized workers — people involved in food safety, review of medical devices and other areas — have already been reinstated.

It’s unclear why F.D.A. officials reversed themselves. Christina notes the layoffs may not have saved the government much money. Several of the employees’ salaries are funded by fees companies pay the F.D.A., not taxpayers.

  • Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts warned the commerce secretary that Musk’s team could gain access to trade secrets and other data from his competitors held by the department.

  • A fake video of Musk and Trump appeared on televisions at the federal housing agency this morning as employees there returned to the office full time.


the partnership that wasn’t

When the idea for the Department of Government Efficiency was born, it was supposed to be a buddy movie starring two entrepreneurs: Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the businessman and former long-shot presidential candidate.

Advertisement

Ramaswamy rankled Trump after publicly clashing with some of his supporters over immigration, and he saw himself out of the federal government and set about planning to run for governor in Ohio, which he officially announced tonight.

It’s difficult now to imagine Musk sharing the spotlight. And the buddy movie playing on repeat in Washington is, of course, about Musk and Trump.

Ramaswamy’s ties to Trump have given him a leg up in the race, my colleague Charles Homans recently reported. But his campaign could turn on the question of whether or not Trump — and maybe Musk — endorses him.


Got a Tip?
The Times offers several ways to send important information confidentially.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

EU and UK in talks about Europe-wide defence funding amid fear of US pullback

Published

on

EU and UK in talks about Europe-wide defence funding amid fear of US pullback

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Britain will this week join EU leaders in groundbreaking talks about setting up Europe-wide defence funding arrangements, as the continent struggles to beef up its military amid fears of a disappearing US security blanket.

UK chancellor Rachel Reeves will hold talks with other European finance ministers at a G20 meeting in Cape Town this week, as the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year.

“It could be a fund or a bank. For example, there is the concept of the Rearmament Bank, which we are also considering,” Polish finance minister Andrzej Domanski said.

Advertisement

Domanski told the Financial Times that discussions had been taking place with the UK for months, adding: “Without Great Britain, the defence of Europe is difficult to imagine.”

The UK Treasury confirmed that Reeves would “raise defence financing proposals with her European counterparts” at the G20, but said talks were at an early stage.

Donald Trump has demanded European Nato allies increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, from an existing 2 per cent target that some still do not reach, or risk losing US protection. 

The US president’s rapid re-engagement with Russia, a country that most European countries see as an existential threat, has sparked frantic discussions on how to collectively bolster Europe’s defensive capabilities and reduce reliance on American troops and weapons.

Friedrich Merz speaking on Sunday © Ina Fassbender/AFP via Getty Images

On Sunday Germany’s incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that Germany had to fundamentally remake its security arrangements and end a decades-long reliance on Washington, saying Trump was “largely indifferent” to Europe’s fate and the continent needed to “achieve independence”.

Advertisement

Collective European defence spending was broadly discussed during a call this weekend between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and a separate call between von der Leyen and Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, according to a person briefed on the discussions. 

European countries are looking for ways to increase defence capabilities at a time of tightly constrained national budgets. By leveraging national guarantees, a bank would allow countries to boost spending without increasing their balance sheets upfront.

The UK is seeking ways of increasing defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent, costing at least £5bn extra a year, when its ability to boost outlays is heavily constrained by its self-imposed fiscal rules. 

General Sir Nick Carter
General Sir Nick Carter served as Chief of the UK Defence Staff from June 2018 to November 2021 © Andrew Matthews/PA

Among the proposals is one from General Sir Nick Carter, former head of the British military, who has suggested a “rearmament bank” to tap into Europe’s savings pool, modelled on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development — the lender set up after the fall of the Iron Curtain to support central and eastern Europe. 

“The Treasury is interested in it,” said one person involved in discussions with Reeves’ team. However, Treasury officials said there were many models of multilateral financing on the table and that Reeves had an open mind on the next steps.

Experts said a benefit for Reeves of Carter’s “rearmament bank” was that it would mitigate the impact of extra defence spending on the fiscal rules.

Advertisement

Andy King, a former UK official who is now at Flint Global, a consultancy, said such a bank had the potential to raise “significant resources for defence without materially impacting the fiscal rules”. He added: “That’s not a certain outcome: the detail would matter in terms of how the entity was structured and how it used its lending capacity.”

The EU leaders meeting in late March will discuss common defence needs, and Poland’s goal would be to make progress on the funding needs at an EU finance ministers gathering in April, ahead of a decision by leaders in June. 

The European Commission said this month it would partially lift EU fiscal rules to allow countries to invest in defence, a move that would allow countries to borrow without incurring sanctions.

Von der Leyen has also opened the door to “common European financing” on common defence projects, and is expected to detail funding options in March.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

DHS memo lays out plans to detain migrants at Fort Bliss and other U.S. bases

Published

on

DHS memo lays out plans to detain migrants at Fort Bliss and other U.S. bases

An immigrant prepares to board a military removal flight last month at Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas.

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Nicholas J. De La Pena/U.S. Department of Defense via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Nicholas J. De La Pena/U.S. Department of Defense via Getty Images

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration is developing plans to build immigration detention facilities on U.S. military bases around the country, according to an internal memo obtained by NPR.

The Department of Homeland Security is asking the Department of Defense for help detaining immigrants without legal status, according to the DHS memo, a step that could significantly expand the military’s role in immigration enforcement.

The memo sent earlier this month from Juliana Blackwell, the acting executive secretary at DHS, lays out a plan to use Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas, to “stage detainees for removal from the United States.”

Advertisement

The request is still in the planning stages, according to a Defense Department official who was not authorized to speak publicly. But if activated, the plan could dramatically expand detention capacity to support President Trump’s push for mass deportations.

Fort Bliss would initially detain up to 1,000 immigrants during a 60-day evaluation period, the memo states, and could eventually hold as many as 10,000 immigrants while serving as a “central hub for deportation operations.”

Fort Bliss could then serve as the model for as many as 10 other holding facilities on military bases nationwide, including Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey; Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station near Buffalo, N.Y.; Hill Air Force Base in Utah; and Homestead Air Reserve Base near Miami.

There is some precedent for using U.S. military bases to house immigrants. The Biden administration stood up a temporary shelter for unaccompanied migrant children at Fort Bliss, and also housed tens of thousands of Afghans at military bases in Wisconsin, New Jersey and elsewhere after the fall of Kabul.

Advertisement

On Friday, the Trump administration removed the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement amid dissatisfaction with the pace of arrests and deportations.

A lack of detention space may be one obstacle. ICE’s existing detention facilities are at full capacity, with more than 41,000 immigrants in custody, according to the most recent data from DHS.

At a White House press briefing last week, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pledged to use “every element and instrument of national power” to accelerate deportations of immigrants with criminal convictions and final orders of removal.

“We are shortly on the verge of achieving a pace and speed of deportations this country has never before seen,” Miller said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending