Whimsical Kim gears up for Biden - GulfToday

Whimsical Kim gears up for Biden

Kim Jong Un

Kim Jong-Un

The new American president-elect Joe Biden has, among his many tasks, to deal with the whims of the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The nation’s leader Kim Jong Un is beefed up with greater leverage in high-stakes nuclear diplomacy, thanks to a more powerful and versatile arsenal of weapons than at the start of the Trump presidency.

While Donald Trump boasts of having prevented war and exchanged “beautiful letters” with Kim, there is no promise from North Korea that it would roll back its weapons of mass destruction programme.

For Kim, Joe Biden appears to be a more difficult partner, more likely to pen a “Dear Jong” letter than engage with him in person – even though the bar for summit diplomacy is lower due to the precedent set by Trump.

Biden does not seem to have taken a liking for Kim. North Korean state media slammed the former US Vice President for criticising leader Kim Jong Un, calling him “bereft of elementary quality as a human being”.

The criticism contrasts with North Korea’s repeated references to the good relationship between Kim and Trump. Kim said in April his personal relationship with Trump was still pretty good despite the collapse of their second summit in Vietnam in February.

In a report, Biden said at a campaign launch in Philadelphia on Saturday: “Are we a nation that embraces dictators and tyrants like (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and Kim Jong Un?”

State media promptly shot back: “What he uttered is just sophism of an imbecile bereft of elementary quality as a human being, let alone a politician,” it said.

Pyongyang embarked on an unprecedented series of weapons tests in 2017, declaring itself a nuclear power after undertaking its biggest nuclear blast and longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches.

After months of tightening sanctions and trading threats, Trump then became the first sitting US president to meet a North Korean leader at a summit in Singapore in 2018.

Kim Jong Un has been doing what he needs to stay in power, and nuclear weapons are the most powerful means of survival.

It remains to be seen what attitude and posturing Joe Biden will take towards someone he called a “thug” and said a meeting is possible only if Pyongyang rolls back its nuclear capability.

Although the North has largely kept to a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests, it has continued to develop new missiles, and engines potentially designed for ICBMs and new mobile launchers, while building its nuclear weapons-grade stockpile, experts say.

However, whatever one might say about the North Korean leader, he appears to pose a threat. Pyongyang has nuclear missiles capable of striking the US mainland.

Expert assessment of the North’s new multiple rocket launchers and surface-to-surface missiles also rate them highly effective in any conflict on the peninsula.

Days after Kim’s third meeting with Trump last year, the North offered a glimpse of a large submarine, believed to be capable of carrying multiple submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). It was seen by military experts as another game changer, just as the Hwasong-15 ICBM launch in 2017 was.

The display was intended to show Kim could take up negotiations where he had left off with Trump, or return to confrontation by resuming advanced weapons tests.

North Korea has had a tough year grappling with typhoons that battered towns, international sanctions and the impact of anti-coronavirus measures.

Despite that, Kim does not seem to go back on welfare measures. He promised to build at least 25,000 homes over the next five years as citizens began a campaign to achieve economic goals despite growing crises.

He is relying on his “man-of-the-people” image to tackle domestic problems. It remains to be seen to what extent he is successful.

Related articles

Majority of US voters support the deal with Iran

US presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to return to the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. Instead, President Biden sticks to the dangerous and destructive policy dictated by Donald Trump who withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped 1,500 punitive sanctions on Iran.

Biden hesitates although 54 per cent of registered US voters support a deal while only 20 per cent oppose; among Biden’s Democrats the number is 70 per cent backers and six per cent opponents; among independents 50 per cent support and 30 per cent do not; and 41 per cent of Republicans are in favour against 35 who are not.

Since Biden’s own positive rating is currently a low 41 per cent against 56 per cent negative rating, it would seem it would behove him to re-enter the deal. The main obstacle is Tehran’s insistence that the US must lift Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a “foreign terrorist organisation,” making the IRG the world’s sole national army to join a host of armed non-state actors.

The text, a somewhat amended version of the original document, has been ready for months and awaits finalisation. Why then is Biden procrastinating and prevaricating? He faces stiff opposition from domestic anti-Iran lobbyists and legislators and Israel where the government rejects the deal. In both countries military and intelligence experts are, however, in favour. They hold, correctly, that Tehran has made great strides in developing both nuclear expertise and output since Trump pulled out, prompting Iran to gradually reduce its adherence in retaliation.

Instead of being limited to 3.67 uranium enrichment Iran has 43 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium: this is a few steps away from the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Instead of having a 300 kilogram stockpile of 3.67 enriched uranium, Iran has a stock 18 times larger of uranium enriched above the 3.67 per cent level permitted. Instead of carrying out enrichment with old, approved centrifuges, Iran has employed advanced centrifuges.

Instead of abiding by the stringent monitoring regime put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been slipping surveillance. Until Iran began to breach the regulatory regime, it was the toughest on earth.

Nevertheless, Iran has pledged to revert to the deal once the US re-enters and to halt enrichment above 3.67 per cent, export all but 300 kilogrammes of the permitted 3.67 per cent of material in its stockpile, revert to old centrifuges which have been warehoused, and re-engage fully with the IAEA monitoring effort.

Opponents of the deal argue its “sunset clauses” will expire by 2031, thereby ending restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. This may be addressed in the new deal.

However, they also contend it fails to curb in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and sup- port for Lebanon’s Hizbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Iraqi Shia militias and the Syrian government.

Since these issues are outside the purview of the 2015 deal, Iran rightly rejects including them in its successor. Tehran has also made it clear that they can be discussed directly with the US once Biden re-joins the deal and sanctions are lifted.

After months of trying to get the external issues incorporated into the nuclear deal, the Biden administration conceded that this is impossible.

On April 29th this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign had failed and “produced a more dangerous nuclear programme” while Iran stepped up involvement in regional affairs. These post-Ukraine war remarks suggested that the Biden administration was ready to return to the deal.

However, the administration continues to blow hot at one moment and cold another. Last week Washington may have blown up the deal. At the 35-member IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna the US — along with acolytes Britain, France, and Germany — secured the adoption of a resolution critical of Iran over its inability or refusal to account for traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites found by IAEA monitors in 2019 and 2020.

The resolution, which received 30 votes in favour — with Iran and Russia voting against and India, China and Libya abstaining — urges Iran to co-operate “without delay” with inspectors after IAEA director Rafael Grossi reported he had not received a “technically credible” explanation for the presence of particles.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi pointed out that uranium “contamination” was possible “in a country as vast as Iran.” He also suggested “human sabotage” by Israel which is blamed for repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinations of Iranian scientists.

Iranian officials are suspicious due to the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Bin- yamin Netanyahu instigated visits by IAEA inspectors to one of the three contaminate sites at the village of Turquzabad near Tehran. IAEA monitors took soil samples and concluded that there were “traces of radioactive material” at the location which may have been used for storage as there were no signs of processing. How did Netanyahu know there were samples at this site?

Although the IAEA still has more than 40 cameras which will continue to operate at Iran’s enrichment facilities, Grossi stated Tehran’s action mounted to a “serious challenge.” He warned that in three or four weeks the agency would be unable to provide “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s activities. “This could be a fatal blow” to negotiations over the nuclear deal, he stated.

He also warned that Iran is “just a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran halted work on weaponisation in 2003 and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that Iran will not manufacture nuclear weapons as they are prohibited by Islam.

Kelsey Davenport of the “independent” Washington-based Arms Control Association told the BBC that in ten days or less Iran could transform its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into the 90 per cent required for weapons. She said, however, that manufacturing bombs would require one or two years.

If Biden continues dithering the deal could die, further destabilising an already unstable region.

Michael Jansen, Political Correspondent

12 Jun 2022