Recently a lot has and is being written on all possible ways of development of the situation with North Korea, specially after the victory of a new “oppositional” president of the Republic of Korea. The emphasis is made on the idea of an unprecedented military crisis in the Korean peninsula starting from an American preventive military strike to the total economic embargo of Pyongyang.
For politicians and analysts the inevitability of the current superacute phase of military/nonmilitary escalation of the crisis between the USA and the DPRK was obvious already at least in March of this year, when the author was on an academic trip to Pyongyang in the middle of March and had a possibility to discuss the topic with the leading diplomats of the DPRK’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Then one of the highest-ranking diplomats, among others, directly indicated, that they surely monitor all election statements of D. Trump, but judge his intentions not by his words, but by his real actions, choice of personnel to his team, etc. Thus, they were preparing to the period of a very acute confrontation with the new administration in the nearest time. At the first stage most likely the situation will not get to the direct military collision, but a period of an unprecedentedly long and exhausting embargo is evidently inevitable.
They are ready to any scenario with the aim of providing the ultimate survival of their political and economical system.
Today, as we may observe, main theses of his analysis are coming into realization.
For the integrity of the analysis, let us concentrate on the most threatening aspects of the escalating crisis involving Pyongyang and its unwavering intention to continue strengthening the nuclear-missile shield of the Republic in case the international community continues to deny it adequate negotiation initiatives. (Although, as we may observe, certain initiatives on intermediary services are offered recently, including by V.V. Putin and the new president of the Republic of Korea Moon Jae-in).
But unfortunately it is not such reconciliation attempts that have a decisive influence so far.
Recently hard efforts are taken by both multiple non-governmental and international organizations to “impenetrably” seal the national border of the DPRK with its neighbors: the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on land and sea (it gets to demand to block the traffic through the main railway bridge across the boundary river Yalu and the pipeline across the border). To provide for the realization of such an unprecedented activity the military authorities of the USA even requested the Congress a right to examine North-Korean commercial ships at other countries’ harbors including the Russian Federation.
In practice surveillance and examination of, in theory, all commercial, economic and financial transactions are being established, which North-Korean and Chinese companies conduct or could conduct hypothetically through third countries and partner companies. It means, de-facto many commercial organizations of “The Heavenly Empire” are already under the surveillance of the Treasury Department of the USA, not mentioning the companies in other countries.
It is apparent, that the aim of all this immense and unprecedented activity is to build an impenetrable buffer zone around Pyongyang to “not allow it further threatening the world with the weapons of mass destruction, first of all the nuclear ones”. As long as a military solution of the problem in case of the DPRK is considered impossible for Washington due to the inevitability and the impressive scale of the armed response on the part of North Korea, this time the idea is to impose an impenetrable land, sea and air embargo.
Let us get back to the question, what is the main reason of the unprecedented activity under consideration. It is well-known that an opinion has formed in a considerable part of international community under the massive and persistent pressure of western mass-media and expert organizations that it is the DPRK that is the main source of threat to the international security. The country that is not going to attack anyone carries out its weapons tests only in the national territory, etc. Multiple publications are written on the subject, including by the author, providing countless pros and cons arguments to the opposing points of view.
For this reason, in the current publication the author would like to bring attention of the audience to the other problem, which is in our opinion not less fundamental – preservation of the United Nations Organization in the modern world, which was established in 1945 for supporting the aims of the global peace.
Indeed, notwithstanding anything that is proclaimed today by the western mass-media institution, all independently thinking people in the world, which is quite a few, understand, what is going on for real.
The states directing the UNO, mobilizing its mechanism and possibilities s well as their own ones, and above all the authority of the above-said international organization, are trying to induce a total economic embargo, a destructive phenomenon, resembling in its essence to the phenomenon of “genocide”. And the aim is a state – member of the UNO, which real guilt is mainly an attempt to assert its own right to live in a way it has chosen for itself in accordance with its national traditions, for which means it has to provide for its survival guaranteed with the national military potential.
Moreover, the world remembers that in 1950 an unprecedented event had already taken place, when the UNO – the symbol of peace, became de-facto a party in the conflict against one of the states and that state was the DPRK. That unique situation naturally left various and mostly hard memories both in the UNO itself and in many other countries. Recent events recalling that tragic situation, in our opinion, could increase the number of experts certain that the modern UNO again is not fulfilling many tasks assigned to it.
Continuing these alarming considerations, let us draw the following conclusion. In case the above scenario is realized, and having professional knowledge of North Korea the author is certain that the realization will be rather dramatic, will the world and, first of all, the UNO itself remain the same?
In our opinion, most probably – not.
Let us not forget that for a considerably long time various rather authoritative organizations and experts negotiate in various aspects and forms the necessity of a deep reformation of the UNO. Apparently, there are strong reasons for it. But – so far such discussions were carried out mainly in a peaceful philosophical and academic sense.
Let us suppose the described scenario, by now, a futurological one, – of the DPRK’s liquidation by the UNO’s mechanism by means of de-facto a form of genocide or something close to it – becomes reality. What will be the reaction of countries – members of the UNO, not being a part of privileged minority and thriving G-20? Most likely, the reaction will be a rather emotional one, a lasting one, with far-reaching consequences.
It is rather possible that majority of the member states – members of the UN General Assembly immediately and firmly raise a question of radical reformation of the UNO’s structure and its authorities with principal and fundamental revision of their rights and powers.
Here the last but not the least and principally essential for us, Russians, question rises, the analysis of which is at the bottom-line of all our considerations.
What will become of Russia and other permanent members of the Security Council in the new, radically altered UNO?
It is well-known that currently by means of skillfully maintaining the balance of interests between leading states of the UNO, masterful diplomacy in finding consensus on the majority of international, Moscow and other powers has managed to preserve a mostly favorable balance and status quo with the leading authorities in the UNO and, first of all – to preserve the cardinal value – the permanent veto right during voting at the UNO Security Council.
But in the above described conditions, with radically and cardinally changed authorities and structure of the UNO, on the basis of, probably uncontrolled emotional processes, the legitimacy and validity of the existing leading positions and, above all, the permanent veto right during voting at the UNO Security Council of all permanent members in the new leading structure of the UNO or a similar new organization, can become questionable in the opinion of the majority of member states of the UN General Assembly or even become history.
In our opinion such a trend of a possible UNO’s metamorphosis, which can be seeing by some as too extravagant, by all means should not be ignored by Russian and international diplomatic, academic and expert community at a time when large-scale punitive sanctions develop against the DPRK.
Dr. Alexander Vorontsov
Head of Korea and Mongolia Department
Institute of Oriental studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Associated Professor Oriental Studies Department
The 4th Media