Paris, 10 September 2017
Copy :
1- President of the French
Republic
2- European Commission
3- UN
4- Embassies: England, North
Korea (London), South Korea, China, Japan, FRG, Russia USA.
5- Presidents of Parliament and
French Parliamentary Groups
Reflection on Mr Xi's approach
to Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron.
1) - The absence of the right
The main characteristic of the
Korean crisis is the evacuation of the right. It is not mentioned anywhere. As
if it were useless, except to confirm the facts and gestures of the victor.
It is a pleonasm to say that
there is no pacific solution out of the law, the authority and the means of it
which it confers.
The whole discourse of men and
state bodies rests on a subjective vocabulary and a voluntarist policy which
are in fact the framework and mask of the civil discourse of war.
The inability of governments to
control this crisis stems from their use of the vocabulary of war, which seems
to them to have been a matter of course since the Korean Peninsula, during
their slumber, fell unconsciously into law.
2) - Who to call?
In calling the German
Chancellor and then the French President, the Chinese President stresses the
urgency of the situation and its dangerousness.
At the same time, he called on
Europe to take a leading role in resolving the Korean crisis.
He attributes a special place
to France as a permanent member of the UN Security Council: "China hopes
that France, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will play a
constructive role in appeasing the
situation and restart the dialogue "
In their conversation the
German, Chinese and French interlocutors spoke of the three points that mark
this global discussion.
a- According to the Elysee, the
two leaders "recalled the condemnation by the international community of
North Korean provocations".
b- According to Mr. Xi
"The Korean question can only be resolved by peaceful means, through
dialogue and consultations".
c- As he had already said a few
hours earlier to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Chinese President
reiterated that his country wanted "the denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula".
The "denuclearization of
the Korean peninsula" is indeed the right answer to the question of a
possible nuclear confrontation.
You still have to know who to
turn to for this operation. As
for Kiesinger Europe, there is no Korean telephone number to discuss denuclearization.
The solution to the question of
nuclear proliferation in Korea and the dangers it poses to the planet goes hand
in hand with the identification of the interlocutors.
3) – 1953
The two Korean States are
deemed to have been created by the Panmunjeom Armistice on 27 July 1953. They
are separated by the 38th parallel.
This armistice was signed by
China but not by South Korea. This
means that no peace treaty has really been signed, and that both sides of Korea
are still officially at war with one another.
This armistice did not separate
states from war but it allocated a geographical zone to two political Armies.
It is from this division of the
Battlefield that these political Armies will constitute two distinct
populations and two states.
For them, the armistice is only
a pose in a struggle which must lead to victory and thus to control of the
whole territory.
This military evidence is
imperative, to the leaders of these states which are only the civilian facades
of the armies, in the form of the ideology of the Reunification.
The practical impossibility of
this one leads some to military alliances and the others to an atomic
armaments.
The instability and insecurity
in which these pseudo-states live and the expansionist aims of both sides are
produced by the legal framework of the armistice between two political armies
and the doctrine of reunification, it
induces.
To allow ad hoc international
bodies to demand peaceful international relations from the two Koreas and to
allow the lucid and enterprising populations to develop these countries without
being under the guardianship of the Reunification, implies to leave the
Panmunjeom apparatus. The latter
has done his part. It
becomes counterproductive and troublesome.
4) – 2017
These two Korean states must be
put in the possibility of declaring themselves Nation and not
Military-political Camp.
It is therefore the question of
Reunification which must be approached in order to settle the question of
States and to allow a solution to the military and nuclear question.
As long as the policy of these
two states remains "Reunification," these states remain the skirts of
the two political armies that continue their confrontation by other means
hoping to return to the unifying armed confrontation.
The verbiage about peaceful
reunification, for example, by the collapse of North Korea, has never been anything
but Trompe-l'oeil.
Only the abandonment of the
policy of reunification can lead to the emancipation of the two States from
their original foundation in 1953 from the two political armies
They may then become States in
their own right.
a- The 38th parallel is no
longer a demarcation line but a boundary.
b- States are no longer
military geographical areas but independent countries whose populations have
strong personal links.
c. Reunification is said to be
unconstitutional.
It is therefore necessary to
convene a conference with all parties.
5) - The conference
Contrary to the habits, no one
offers a conference. This
is so because all the actors are stuck in the archaic patterns of the supremacy
of the political armies and their grigers of reunification.
They lack the words to describe
a new reality which they perceive only by its resemblance to the old.
The Powers think they hold the
Koreans by this old age while their leaders are themselves prisoners of the
barbed wire of the 38th parallel.
The object of the conference
can not be to ratify a peace. This
would again place the military contentious of the political armies in the
direction of negotiation.
1- Recognition of the two
States
The first objective of the
conference should be to recognize the two States as States and not as a
perpetuation of the political armies.
From the moment these two
states are recognized, the position of state and civilian personnel changes
completely.
Virtually all of them owe
nothing to the political armies to which the armistice has attributed these
territories.
2- Independence of States
Second, the conference must
recognize the independence of these states. One has nothing
to do legally with the other. They
are border states whose populations have a common history and culture, family
ties.
These two operations must lead
to the signing of a Treaty of recognition, independence, renunciation of the
Reunification. These
two state camps can thus change their name.
3- Powers
Thirdly, the conference must
bring the Allied Powers, directly or indirectly, from each of the two Koreas,
to recognize the first Treaty and to sign the Treaty guaranteeing the
renunciation of any seizure of Korea from the other alliance.
China does not have to be in
Seoul. The
United States does not have to be in Pyongyang.
4- Security
The conference must acknowledge
the legal security of the two Koreas.
a- Each of the two Koreas can
no longer claim the other.
b- No foreign power supporting
Korea can claim hegemony over the other for any reason whatsoever.
From then on, the negotiation
on North Korea's compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty can have a
practical meaning.
The Conference may decide that
the Secretary-General of the United Nations should present the Treaties in
person and directly to the peoples of the two new countries.
6) – Conclusion
To look for a "diplomatic
and political" solution of the 21st century by privileging the vocabulary
of the balance of power and the subjection of the 20th century is an archaism.
When, on 8 September,
Chancellor Merkel declared that she did not see a military solution to the
conflict, she noted a shift in the organization of the Korean conflict.
In the 20th century, the
military prevailed over politics. Whether by the war or the
armistice. He
led the questions and answers. It
forms the two States and assigns them their policy of reunification.
Voluntarism is the infinite
repetition of this supremacy:
A- It subordinates the
governments to the monstrous technological evolutions of the logic codified by
the Armistice.
b- It prohibits governments
from controlling a device of which they are the prisoners.
In the 21st century, nuclear
dispute marks the end of the primacy of military logic. The
latter is no longer in a position to fail or succeed.
The Korean peninsula has
shifted from the military to the law. The two States no longer oppose each
other because they want to conquer, but first because their legal codifications
are no longer adequate.
The rulers do not find the
political and diplomatic solutions of which they claim themselves because they
refuse to do the work on oneself that imposes a new reality retaining the
appearances of the old one.
It's so much easier to live in
the ghosts of the past.
A conference of law must
therefore be opened. If France is not able to organize it, another country must
do it.
Some qualified people say it's
urgent.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire