Kim Jong Un could give up ICBMs but keep some nuclear forces

This combination of photos shows a file photo taken on June 11, 2018 of US President Donald Trump (L) during his meeting with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (not pictured) at The Istana, the official residence of the prime minister, in Singapore; and a file image of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un (R) during his meeting with the Singaporean leader the day before on June 10, 2018, in Singapore. (AFP)
Updated 12 June 2018
Follow

Kim Jong Un could give up ICBMs but keep some nuclear forces

  • North Korea’s attitude toward dialogue in the past two years has seemed to shift with setbacks or progress in its weapons tests
  • Kim is probably modeling a nuclear future after Pakistan, which began building a nuclear arsenal in the 1990s to deter India

SEOUL, South Korea: After years of effort to develop nuclear missiles that can target the US mainland, is North Korean leader Kim Jong Un really ready to pack them away in a deal with President Donald Trump?
Perhaps, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean Pyongyang is abandoning its nuclear ambitions entirely.
Tuesday’s meeting in Singapore between Kim and Trump comes after a sharp turn in North Korea’s diplomacy, from rebuffing proposals for dialogue last year to embracing and even initiating them this year. The change may reflect a new thinking about its nuclear deterrence strategy — and how best to secure the ultimate goal of protecting Kim’s rule.
A look at how Kim’s appetite for talks swung amid the North’s ups and downs in weapons development and what that says about how he might approach his negotiations with Trump:

TESTS AND TALKS
North Korea’s attitude toward dialogue in the past two years has seemed to shift with setbacks or progress in its weapons tests.
Even after starting a rapid process of weapons development following a nuclear test in January 2016, Pyongyang constantly invited rivals to talks that year.
It proposed military meetings with Seoul to reduce tensions and indicated it could suspend its nuclear and missile tests if the US-South Korean military drills were dialed back. Washington and Seoul demurred, saying Pyongyang first must show genuine intent to denuclearize.
At the time, North Korea’s quest for a credible nuclear deterrent against the US was troubled. The military conducted eight tests of its “Musudan” intermediate-range missile in 2016, but only one of those launches was seen as successful. The country’s path toward an intercontinental-range ballistic missile appeared cut off.
North Korea’s stance on dialogue changed dramatically, though, following the successful test of a new rocket engine in March 2017, which the country hailed as a significant breakthrough.
The engine, believed to be a variant of the Russian-designed RD-250, powered a successful May flight of a new intermediate-range missile, the Hwasong-12, reopening the path to an ICBM. That was followed in July by two successful tests of an ICBM, the Hwasong-14.
Pyongyang’s demands for talks disappeared. Proposals to meet from a new liberal government in Seoul were ignored. Determined to test its weapons in operational conditions, the North flew two Hwasong-12s over Japan and threatened to fire them toward Guam, a US military hub.
The North’s state media brought up President Richard Nixon’s outreach to Beijing in the 1970s following a Chinese test of a thermonuclear bomb, saying it was likewise inevitable that Washington will accept North Korea as a nuclear power and take steps to normalize ties.
Kim talked of reaching a military “equilibrium” with the US By all signs, he was fully committed to completing an ICBM program he intended to keep.

THE DETERRENCE GAME
Kim’s turn toward diplomacy this year suggests he may have concluded the nuclear deterrence strategy was failing, some analysts say.
After a November test of a larger ICBM, the Hwasong-15, Kim proclaimed his nuclear force as complete, but his announcement may have been more politically motivated than an assessment of capability.
Although the Hwasong-15 displayed a greater range than the Hwasong-14, there was no clear sign the North had made meaningful progress in the technology needed to ensure that a warhead would survive the harsh conditions of atmospheric re-entry.
New US National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy reports released in December and January respectively also seemed to reduce the credibility of Kim’s deterrence plans, said Hwang Ildo, a professor at Seoul’s Korea National Diplomatic Academy.
In the documents, the US assesses it could sufficiently defend against the small number of North Korean ICBMs — believed to be about 10 or fewer — with its 44 ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska. Missiles fired from North Korea would have to pass Alaska to reach the US mainland.
Experts are divided on whether the interceptors, which Washington plans to deploy in larger numbers soon, can be counted on to destroy incoming warheads. However, Hwang said, real capability doesn’t matter as much as Trump believing that the system works, which reduces the bargaining power of the ICBMs.
Kim can’t be the Mao Zedong to Trump’s Nixon if the US sees his weapons as containable. With North Korea’s limited resources, as well as the threat of a pre-emptive US attack, it’s difficult for the North to mass produce enough ICBMs to overwhelm the interceptors in Alaska.
Rather than prolonging his nation’s economic suffering, Kim may have concluded it would be better to deal away his ICBMs at the cusp of operational capability, especially when it was no longer clear the missiles would guarantee his survival.
“North Korea always tries to maintain flexibility and increase its options from step to step,” Hwang said.

A PAKISTANI MODEL?
What never changes for North Korea is that the survival of the Kim regime comes first.
Nam Sung-wook, a North Korea expert at Seoul’s Korea University, said Kim is probably modeling a nuclear future after Pakistan, which began building a nuclear arsenal in the 1990s to deter India. Pakistan is now estimated to have more than 100 warheads that are deliverable by short- and medium-range weapons and aircraft.
Kim may be seeking a deal where he gives up his ICBMs but keeps his shorter-range arsenal, which may satisfy Trump but drive a wedge between Washington and its Asian allies, Seoul and Tokyo. In drills with shorter-range weapons in 2016, the North demonstrated the potential to carry out nuclear attacks on South Korean ports and US military facilities in Japan.
In negotiations, Kim may try to exclude submarine technologies from a freeze or verification process to leave open a path toward sub-launched ballistic missile systems, Hwang said.
Then, if diplomacy fails and Kim goes back to building nuclear weapons, the systems would expand their reach and provide a second-strike capability to retaliate if North Korea’s land-based launch sites are destroyed.
North Korea successfully tested a submarine-launched missile that flew about 500 kilometers (310 miles) in August 2016. Analysts believe the solid-fuel missile can hit targets as far as 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) away.
That said, it would take years for the North to develop a fleet of submarines that can quietly travel deep into the Pacific.
The immediate outcome of the summit in Singapore is likely to be a vague aspirational statement on the North’s denuclearization, Nam said. When it comes to details, Washington and Pyongyang are destined to “muddle through” a lengthy process, wrestling over the terms of monitoring and inspections, he said.
Still, such a process would halt the growth of the North’s nuclear program and prevent it from using its weapons to flex its diplomatic muscle, Nam said. It could take a decade or so for Kim to find his next move in nuclear deterrence if he’s eyeing a submarine-launched system. That could be enough time for Washington, Seoul and others to convince Kim he just can’t win the nuclear game.


A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others

Updated 13 sec ago
Follow

A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others

BAKU, Azerbaijan: United Nations climate talks adopted a deal to inject at least $300 billion annually in humanity’s fight against climate change, aimed at helping developing nations cope with the ravages of global warming in tense negotiations.
The $300 billion will go to developing countries who need the cash to wean themselves off the coal, oil and gas that causes the globe to overheat, adapt to future warming and pay for the damage caused by climate change’s extreme weather. It’s not near the full amount of $1.3 trillion that developing countries were asking for, but it’s three times a deal of $100 billion a year from 2009 that is expiring. Some delegations said this deal is headed in the right direction, with hopes that more money flows in the future.
But it was not quite the agreement by consensus that these meetings usually operate with and some developing nations were livid about being ignored.
COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev gaveled the deal into acceptance before any nation had a chance to speak. When they did they blasted him for being unfair to them, the deal for not being enough and the world’s rich nations for being too stingy.

A screen displays COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev as he speaks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 24, 2024. (REUTERS)

“It’s a paltry sum,” India negotiator Chandni Raina said, repeatedly saying how India objected to rousing cheers. “I’m sorry to say we cannot accept it.”
She told The Associated Press that she has lost faith in the United Nations system.
After a deal, nations express their discontent
A long line of nations agreed with India and piled on, with Nigeria’s Nkiruka Maduekwe, CEO of the National Council on Climate Change, calling the deal an insult and a joke.
“I’m disappointed. It’s definitely below the benchmark that we have been fighting for for so long,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey, of the Panama delegation. He noted that a few changes, including the inclusion of the words “at least” before the number $300 billion and an opportunity for revision by 2030, helped push them to the finish line.
“Our heart goes out to all those nations that feel like they were walked over,” he said.
The final package pushed through “does not speak or reflect or inspire confidence,” India’s Raina said.
“We absolutely object to the unfair means followed for adoption,” Raina said. “We are extremely hurt by this action by the president and the secretariat.”

Evans Njewa, an environmental officer at Malawi's Environmental Affairs Department, attends the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 23, 2024. (REUTERS)

Speaking for nearly 50 of the poorest nations of the world, Evans Davie Njewa of Malawi was more mild, expressing what he called reservations with the deal. And the Alliance of Small Island States’ Cedric Schuster said he had more hope “that the process would protect the interests of the most vulnerable” but nevertheless expressed tempered support for the deal.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a post on X that he hoped for a “more ambitious outcome.” But he said the agreement “provides a base on which to build.”
Some see deal as relief following tough talks
There were somewhat satisfied parties, with European Union’s Wopke Hoekstra calling it a new era of climate funding, working hard to help the most vulnerable. But activists in the plenary hall could be heard coughing over Hoekstra’s speech in an attempt to disrupt it.
Eamon Ryan, Ireland’s environment minister, called the agreement “a huge relief.”
“It was not certain. This was tough,” he said. “Because it’s a time of division, of war, of (a) multilateral system having real difficulties, the fact that we could get it through in these difficult circumstances is really important.”
UN Climate Change’s Executive Secretary Simon Stiell called the deal an “insurance policy for humanity,” adding that like insurance, “it only works if the premiums are paid in full, and on time.”

Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, speaks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 24, 2024. (REUTERS)

The deal is seen as a step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases that are due early next year. It’s part of the plan to keep cutting pollution with new targets every five years, which the world agreed to at the UN talks in Paris in 2015.
The Paris agreement set the system of regular ratcheting up climate fighting ambition as away to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The world is already at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) and carbon emissions keep rising.
Hopes that more climate cash will follow
Countries also anticipate that this deal will send signals that help drive funding from other sources, like multilateral development banks and private sources. That was always part of the discussion at these talks — rich countries didn’t think it was realistic to only rely on public funding sources — but poor countries worried that if the money came in loans instead of grants, it would send them sliding further backward into debt that they already struggle with.

Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, speaks to members of the media at the COP29 UN Climate Summit,  on Nov. 24, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. (AP)

“The $300 billion goal is not enough, but is an important down payment toward a safer, more equitable future,” said World Resources Institute President Ani Dasgupta. “This deal gets us off the starting block. Now the race is on to raise much more climate finance from a range of public and private sources, putting the whole financial system to work behind developing countries’ transitions.”
And even though it’s far from the needed $1.3 trillion, it’s more than the $250 billion that was on the table in an earlier draft of the text, which outraged many countries and led to a period of frustration and stalling over the final hours of the summit.
Other deals agreed at COP29
The several different texts adopted early Sunday morning included a vague but not specific reference to last year’s Global Stocktake approved in Dubai. Last year there was a battle about first-of-its-kind language on getting rid of the oil, coal and natural gas, but instead it called for a transition away from fossil fuels. The latest talks only referred to the Dubai deal, but did not explicitly repeat the call for a transition away from fossil fuels.
Countries also agreed on the adoption of Article 6, creating markets to trade carbon pollution rights, an idea that was set up as part of the Paris Agreement to help nations work together to reduce climate-causing pollution. Part of that was a system of carbon credits, allowing nations to put planet-warming gasses in the air if they offset emissions elsewhere. Backers said a UN-backed market could generate up to an additional $250 billion a year in climate financial aid.
Despite its approval, carbon markets remain a contentious plan because many experts say the new rules adopted don’t prevent misuse, don’t work and give big polluters an excuse to continue spewing emissions.
“What they’ve done essentially is undermine the mandate to try to reach 1.5,” said Tamara Gilbertson, climate justice program coordinator with the Indigenous Environmental Network. Greenpeace’s An Lambrechts, called it a “climate scam” with many loopholes.
With this deal wrapped up as crews dismantle the temporary venue, many have eyes on next year’s climate talks in Belem, Brazil.
 


Daesh group claims attack on Sufi shrine in Afghanistan

An Afghan policeman stands guard in Kabul. (AFP file photo)
Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

Daesh group claims attack on Sufi shrine in Afghanistan

  • A local resident, who said he knew victims of the attack, said worshippers had gathered at the Sayed Pasha Agha shrine on Thursday evening

KABUL: Daesh (IS-K), the terrorist group’s branch in Afghanistan, on Saturday claimed responsibility for a gun attack that left 10 people dead at a Sufi shrine in northern Baghlan province.
Taliban authorities in Kabul have repeatedly said they have defeated IS-K, but the group regularly claims responsibility for attacks, notably against Sufi or Shiite minorities, targets they consider heretical.
On Friday, interior ministry spokesman Abdul Matin Qani told AFP that a gunman opened fire on Sufis “taking part in a weekly ritual” at a shrine in a remote area of Nahrin district, killing 10 people.
A local resident, who said he knew victims of the attack, said worshippers had gathered at the Sayed Pasha Agha shrine on Thursday evening.
They had begun a Sufi chant when “a man shot at the dozen worshippers,” he said on condition of anonymity.
“When people arrived for morning prayers, they discovered the bodies,” he added.
The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, wrote on X: “Religious minorities remain under grave threat. More prevention, protection & justice needed.”
The Daesh group accuses Sufis of worshipping more than one god because of their devotion to saints.
In mid-September, the group claimed responsibility for an attack in central Afghanistan that killed 14 people who had gathered to welcome pilgrims returning from Karbala in Iraq, one of the holiest sites for Shiites.

 


India opposes COP29 finance deal after it is adopted

Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

India opposes COP29 finance deal after it is adopted

BAKU: India strongly objected to a climate finance deal agreed at the United Nations COP29 summit on Sunday, but their objection was raised after the deal was formally adopted by consensus.
“I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document,” Indian delegation representative Chandni Raina told the closing plenary session of the summit.

 

 


UN secretary general says more work needed on COP29 finance deal

Updated 59 min 38 sec ago
Follow

UN secretary general says more work needed on COP29 finance deal

  • Final deal commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developed countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters
  • Climate chief Simon Stiell says it was “no time for victory laps”

UNITED NATIONS/BAKU, Azerbaijan: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed concern that the climate finance deal agreed early Sunday in Azerbaijan did not go far enough, as he urged nations to view it as a “foundation” on which to build.
“I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome — on both finance and mitigation — to meet the great challenge we face,” Guterres said in a statement, adding that he is appealing “to governments to see this agreement as a foundation — and build on it.”
After two exhaustive weeks of negotiations, the final deal commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developed countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters.
That is up from $100 billion now provided by wealthy countries under a commitment set to expire — and from the $250 billion proposed in an earlier draft Friday.
The deal “must be honored in full and on time,” Guterres said.
“Commitments must quickly become cash. All countries must come together to ensure the top-end of this new goal is met.”
He called on countries to deliver new economy-wide climate action plans “well ahead of COP30 — as promised.”
“The end of the fossil fuel age is an economic inevitability. New national plans must accelerate the shift, and help to ensure it comes with justice,” he said, closing with a message to activists pushing for more to “keep it up.”
“The United Nations is with you. Our fight continues. And we will never give up,” Guterres said.

‘No time for victory laps’

UN climate chief Simon Stiell on Sunday said it was “no time for victory laps” after nations at COP29 in Azerbaijan agreed a bitterly negotiated finance deal.

“No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work still to do. So this is no time for victory laps,” Stiell said in a statement.


Mass rape trial sparks demonstrations across France

Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

Mass rape trial sparks demonstrations across France

  • Police sources said 35,000 people had turned out across the country, while organizers put the figure at 100,000

PARIS: Tens of thousands demonstrated in major French cities Saturday against violence targeting women, as campaigners push for the country to learn from a mass rape trial that has shocked the public.
The prosecution in the southern city Avignon is in its final stages for 51 men, including one who drugged his wife over the course of a decade and dozens of others charged with accepting his invitations to abuse her at their home.
Out on the street, “the more of us there are, the more visible we are, this is everyone’s business, not just women,” said Peggy Plou, an elected official from the Indre-et-Loire region in western France who had made the trip to Paris.
Thousands of people marched in the capital alone, mostly women but including some children and men. Police put the turnout there at 12,500, while organizers said 80,000.
Police sources said 35,000 people had turned out across the country, while organizers put the figure at 100,000.
Hundreds also turned out in other major cities including Marseille in the south, Lille in the northeast and Rennes in the northwest. Local officials in Bordeaux, in the southwest, put the turnout there at 1,600.
Many demonstrators carried signs with variations on the slogan “Shame must switch sides,” popularised by the plaintiff in the Avignon trial, Gisele Pelicot.
She has become a feminist hero for choosing public hearings in her case rather than a trial behind closed doors, despite their painful content.

“A law about consent must be put in place very quickly. Just because someone doesn’t say something, doesn’t mean that they agree” to sexual contact, said Marie-Claire Abiker, 78, a retired nurse who marched in Paris.
France’s legal definition of rape calls it “any act of sexual penetration... by violence, constraint, threats or surprise” but includes no language about consent — a key demand of women’s rights groups especially since the MeToo movement launched in the late 2010s.
“In 2018, there were basically only women (demonstrating). Today there are, let’s say, 30 percent men. That’s really great news,” said Amy Bah, a member of the NousToutes (All of us women) feminist group protesting in Lille.
“I feel like this is my business too, we each have our role to play, especially men,” said Arnaud Garcette, 38, at the Marseille demonstration in the city’s historic port with his two children.
“We’re at the source of the problem, and at the source of the solutions too,” he added.
The demonstrations, called by more than 400 campaign groups, come two days before the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on Monday.
Equality Minister Salima Saa has promised “concrete and effective” measures to coincide with the global day.
According to a report in Sunday’s Tribune Dimanche weekly, Prime Minister Michel Barnier will announce measures including increased training for police officers and more support for victims of domestic violence who leave their home.
The campaigners who organized Saturday’s protests are calling for more far-reaching measures, including a dedicated 2.6 billion-euro ($2.7 billion) budget and a stronger legal framework to tackle the problem.
During his first term as French president, Emmanuel Macron vowed to prioritize the cause of equality between men and women and to work to eliminate violence against women.