A New Cold War in the Far East?

Secluded, isolated, and impoverished, North Korea has no other leverage instruments of foreign policy other than a nuclear capability.  Karl Marx wrote that the most effective power is structural because it functions without being used. Nuclear weapons, the ultimate expression of strength, function in exactly this way and provide status in international hierarchies. North Korea accepted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985 but withdrew in 2002 (the only country to have done so).  Since 2002, North Korea has conducted numerous nuclear and missile delivery tests (in defiance of the UN).  We now understand that North Korea is on the brink of deploying a ballistic nuclear missile capability with the range to reach the West Coast of the USA.  Over the weekend, they tested a hydrogen bomb claimed to be small enough to be fitted to the intercontinental missile. This places continental US under direct threat of a first use nuclear attack.  Bellicose threats of respective annihilation have resulted and the US is attempting to gain consensus in the UN Security Council to bring the maverick North Korea to (the US) heel.

What will Kim do with this devastating power? Obviously, an ideologically crazed attack on the US is a possibility. Whilst this would cause unacceptable damage to the US, even if only one warhead got through, the massive American nuclear arsenal would ensure the complete obliteration of North Korea.  The fire and fury, not to mention the radiation, would be incidental – the initial blast having flattened everything of significance. Both sides know this and therefore it is reasonable to assume it won’t happen because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. After all, this kept the nuclear arms confrontation between USSR an NATO at just that, a confrontation, for 50 years so why shouldn’t the same logic work here?

However, whilst another nuclear balance of terror might keep the peace it would not deal with the consequences of proliferation.  At the moment, North Korea exports its rocket and nuclear technology to third countries thus exacerbating proliferation problems. It is in all our interests for this transfer to come under international control. 

The more likely explanation is that North Korea wants to use it’s new found power as a bargaining chip, both in terms of improving international prestige and trade. Paradoxically, Kim may reason that a nuclear armed North Korea may be more likely to escape from UN censure and trade sanctions than if he were to offer to bring his arms programme into existing nuclear treaties.  This may be true and President Trump recognises that Kim can be a “smart cookie,” in which case, Trump should recognise that Kim is unlikely to give up his "trump" card for anything.  An international accommodation with the new reality will be required.  It seems certain, however, that we shall not be able to discover what Kim really wants without talking to him, directly or indirectly so let us hope that channels of bilateral dialogue are set up before misunderstanding breeds.  Although face to face dialogue seems unlikely in the short term, they must talk eventually.

The role of China as interlocutor will be vital.  China buys coal, about the only thing North Korea produces and otherwise bankrolls the North Korean state.  Whilst China could bring North Korea to heel by withdrawing support, such action could result in the breakdown of the North Korean state and provoke the same reaction as military action, albeit with less immediate panic.  There is no win-win course of action for China as she walks a tightrope between the international responsibilities of a global super power and regional imperative to keep stability in its own backyard. Whatever it does, China plays its cards very close to its chest. 

Digressing in search of an example, I was in Hong Kong in 1974 awaiting the arrival of my bride by RAF VC-10. The wedding had been arranged to take place at RAF Kai Tak exactly 7 days later to comply with residency rules. However, I had reckoned without the power of nature and Typhoon Gloria, rapidly approaching Hong Kong from Luzon to the East. Wind speeds rose and soon the normally challenging approaches to the Kai Tak Airport became unsafe.  The RAF wisely decided to hold the VC10 in Singapore until the weather in Hong Kong improved. The delay meant that my future wife could no longer fulfil the residency requirements and so a special licence was required.  Local friends at the Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force, where I was on Loan Service from the RAF, advised that I should visit the official responsible to obtain a licence as soon as possible so I rushed down to Star Ferry and across to Hong Kong side to the Government office responsible.  There is was greeted by a solitary official seated behind a large desk. It was well known that Hong Kong Chinese were particularly inscrutable. In business, one often described one’s Chinese negotiator as sitting wearing an impenetrable “scrute.”  And so it was with the wedding licence official.  Although I had only been in the Colony for a few months, I had already learned enough about local custom to know that it was always a mistake to rush things.  So, I sat down opposite and impassively observed the scrute, hoping that such an obvious display of interest would break the ice.  It didn’t and I jumped to the third stage of the standard negotiating process, opening my wallet.  I began by removing large red $HK 100 notes, one at a time.  Miraculously, after the third or fourth, the scrute softened and an envelope was passed across the desk.  Nothing else was said and I left immediately, rushing back to Star Ferry just in time to catch the last departure before that service closed for the duration.

I make that personal reminiscence because, in dealing with China, probably not much has changed and, in the interests of peaceful coexistence, President Trump will have to find his own way to get behind the scrute.

Siren Starmer

Labour’s Keith Starmer, busily setting up his image as “Captain Sensible,” has written to David Davis demanding fundamental changes to the Great Repeal Bill.  Significantly, Starmer wants the Bill softened to include provision for continuing participation in the single market, customs union, and European Court of Justice during an, undefined, transition period.  Feeding from the specious argument that Brexit is exclusively about economics in general and business continuity in particular, Starmer’s compromise of neither in nor out, appears to assuage the fears of those who believe in the cliff edge theory of exit.  But wait, throughout the transition period, UK would:

•  Remain subject to the ECJ
• Continue to pay into the EU budget (at least as much as we are paying now)
• Have no say over how the EU spends
• Be barred from carving out a post-Brexit trading arrangement with the rest of the world
• Continue to endure freedom of movement rules which are not only overpowering our social services but are acting as a huge disincentive to reform our education and skills training system.

In other words, complete limbo.  Presumably, after years of “transition,” Starmer feels we will tire of battling with an intransigent EU and beg to return to full membership, the terms of which would demand membership of the single currency.  Those that say they “respect the result of the referendum (but)” are now beginning to show their true colours. Nigel Biggar, in an excellent article in the Times today, refutes the argument that Brexiteers are deluded by imperial nostalgia.  On the contrary, he argues, Brexiteers are fearful of European imperial ambition.  As the likes of Starmer attempt to lure us onto the rocks, we need to persist in reminding everyone why we voted to leave in the first place.

Brightness Delivered

In my last piece, I urged optimism over the unremitting pessimism of the massed ranks of Remoaners.  With perfect timing, my newspaper this morning reports that our manufacturing sector is growing at the fastest rate in three years, ie, since before the referendum.  Apparently, foreign demand for British goods remains at one of its strongest levels since data started being collected in 1986.  Growth in jobs continues to astound, confidence is high and the £ rose against both the $ and the Euro.

If you rely on the BBC or Channel 4 for your news, you will have missed the good tidings, by the way!

But westward, look, the land is bright!

I seldom agree with much that Philip Collins has to say but, in a rare statement of pragmatic common-sense, he observes in his column today:

“Britain will leave the European Union in 2019 and, sad though that may be for the 48 per cent of the nation to hear, that is what 52 per cent of the nation wanted.”  Quite so.

But I have even less time for Matthew Parris who, like King Canute (his metaphor) refuses to accept the result of the referendum; presumably hoping that, eventually, his sickeningly self-righteous Euromania will be accepted by deluded Brexiteers and the referendum result reversed.  Parris has long since run out of credible arguments and has now taken to playing the men not the ball.  Likening anyone who supports leaving the EU to children (or “bloody fools” or “headbangers” take your pick), he expects the Prime Minister to indulge their (the children’s) naïve negotiating games knowing that the Brexit negotiations will end in tears and humiliation for Brexit supporters.  According to Parris, this is the only way to repair the “damaged mental processes” of the Brexiteers.  Following a period in the naughty corner eating humble pie, Parris generously hints that he could eventually forgive our naughtiness!

Listening to the reports of the negotiations in Brussels, the likely outcome does look like ending in stalemate.  Except it won’t come to that.  Long before Barnier and his team finally rule that not enough progress has been made on anything to allow discussion on anything else, the people who really matter, the businesses for whom trading arrangements are fundamental, will have made their views abundantly clear to their respective national elected leaders. For example, imagine Frau Merkel on the stump telling the voters of Stuttgart that the EU negotiating “process” can make no exception for German cars until Great Britain comes to its senses?

Far from playing games with Barnier, we need to stand up to him and remember that the aim, as reflected in the referendum result, is to leave the EU.  It is not good enough to compromise our negotiating position on the basis that some people, the minority, said don’t leave. Churchill quoted, when the tide appeared to be against him, "In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly, but westward, look, the land is bright."  He could see the possibilities of the future!