June 19, 2018
• Give the man a break. Donald Trump found out in Singapore that, as Churchill said, “Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War”. If war can be avoided by a warm, long, very private chat without advisers, with effusive body gestures and promises of a world stage when his opponent, Kim Jong Un, is invited to the White House, then Trump has showed the way.
It was learning the hard way because a few months ago when Trump threatened to incinerate North Korea he met counter threats from North Korea that could have led to the deaths of 30 million people in South Korea alone, never mind what numbers might die in an attack on American troops stationed in Japan and Guam naval base.
I have no proof but I do think Trump can make a grand peace with North Korea, unlike his predecessors. They too had the will but were defeated by a Republican-dominated Congress that made implementation on what was agreed impossible and in George W. Bush’s case a refusal to build on Bill Clinton’s effective diplomacy. Trump, if he wills it, will have no trouble with Congress. As many commentators have said, if Barack Obama or Clinton had done a Singapore there would have been a big move to have them impeached.
If peace arrives this will turn modern American, European and Russian military history on its head.
The record over the last 70 years has been appalling.
The UN Charter was conceived during the Second World War. Drafts were written in the basement of the US State Department. It prohibited the unilateral use of force. Force can only be used if the Security Council supports it.
In April last year, President Donald Trump launched an attack on Syria to retaliate for chemical weapons used by the government against its own people. (1) The Security Council was ignored.
In September last year, four Israeli jets fired a volley of missiles at a Syrian government facility that probably produced chemical weapons.. (1) Israel, as usual, didn’t ask the Security Council for approval.
Four years ago Russia took over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea without Security Council arbitration or authorisation.
The president of France, Francois Hollande, was ready to back Obama’s plan to invade Syria. Only a last minute change of mind forestalled it – Obama was much influenced by a vote in the British parliament that forbad its government to participate in air strikes unless the UN approved them.
In the early years of his presidency, Obama decided to go to war with the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, with the active support of a number of European countries. This time they sought Security Council authorization, which they were given. But Russia reasonably felt it had been seriously misled. Rightly, it argued, the resolution it had supported said it was to keep the peace, not to kill Gaddafi. Later, as internal fighting wrecked the country, Obama volunteered that this was his worst mistake.
China has intimidated its neighbours into passivity, building military installations on islands and rocks in the South China Sea. One can presume these will be used, if the need arises, without asking the Security Council for permission. Likewise, if China invades Taiwan which it keeps threatening to with an ever louder voice it will not seek permission from the UN, nor will the US- as in 1996- if it sends in a naval force to police the Taiwan Strait.
Further back there was the US war in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the US invasions of Granada, Panama and the Dominican Republic, the mining of Nicaragua’s main port, the NATO bombing of Belgrade and later the NATO war with the Serbs over Kosovo and the US/British invasion of Iraq.
None of these actions sought UN approval.
As for the Soviet Union, it sent in tanks to crush the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Later it invaded Afghanistan.
What a record of abuse of the Charter. But if the US and Europe break the rules why shouldn’t Russia and China? And vice versa.
Nevertheless, the rules have often been observed.
The US, the EU, Russia, China and a host of smaller countries have worked to make the Charter and peacekeeping effective and have pushed forward the boundaries of international law, peacekeeping and humanitarian practice.
This has been one powerful reason why the number of wars has precipitously declined since the end of the Second World War. Today there is not one inter-state war (2) and the number of civil wars has decreased since the end of the Cold War (although in recent years civil wars in the Middle East and Africa have pushed the graph measuring wars up again).
Humankind has become less violent. 99% of the world is not at war. (3)
If Trump could make a deal with North Korea it would be a momentous victory for Jaw-Jaw and the UN Charter.
Only fools believe in War-War.
Copyright: Jonathan Power
1) What really happened in the cases of the use of chemical weapons in Syria remains seriously disputed by competent experts and investigative reporters. And at the time of the “reaction” or “punishment” by Western countries, there were no proofs at all.
2) If by “inter-state” is meant war between two or more sovereign states, it’s a matter of definition and whether the war was declared or not. And with what means, such wars are fought. It is not unreasonable to see the Saudi-Arabian led war on Yemen and the repeated assaults by foreign states on Syria as examples of inter-state wars. Further, the Global Peace Index 2018 – which is weird in several respects – concludes that the world’s peaceful-ness has decreased a little.
3) The belief that the world has become so much more peaceful – or is more peaceful than ever – usually builds on a 2011 book by Stephen Pinker – The Better Angels Of Our Nature – Why Violence Has Declined – which was praised throughout the Western Press because of its liberal pro-US world perspective (and nice overall message) while the study is filled with serious problems in terms of macro-historical analysis, methodology as well as theories and concepts of the basic subject, violence. Pinker even doesn’t seem to know the distinction between direct and structural/system violence.