No Nukes!

Dauren Koptleuov

Recent Korean missiles launch as well as nuclear weapon testing escalated huge concerns in the international community. The United States responded with sending naval missile cruisers to the sea territories near Korean peninsula (Mirror, 2017). At the same time, Russia is witnessed to reinforce the border security with the North Korea, as the global unrest upsurges (Mirror, 2017). According to the Mirror (2017), Russia is taking precautious measures, because the consequences of US target attack on Korean nuclear storages may reach the territory of Russian Federation. While Russia is trying to alleviate the situation by calling sides for responsibility, the escalation of conflict may lead to unexpected and extremely destructive outcomes.

While the United States are not directly threatening, North Korea responds that US naval deployment is a severe “act of aggression” that certainly makes American side responsible in any “catastrophic consequences” that may take place as a result of conflict escalation (CNN, 2017). It is safe to assume that if the United States eventually decides to commit a missile stroke, North Korea will answer with all their nuclear might. Considering the personalities of leaders from both sides, who actually have an access to nuclear launch, the likelihood of nuclear conflict can only increase. As North Korean nuclear tests are considered as violating the international law (Reuters, 2016), the United States, as every rational member-state of international community, expectedly wants to make it stop. However, despite the visible difficulty of situation, there are some means of resolving other than preventive strikes or any other manifestation of violence.

As a political leader, Kim Jong Un is one of the most discussed ones in the modern days. He is known for extremely repressing behavior, fully totalitarian outlook, non-compliance with international norms and regulations and the haircut, of course. The United States are not likely to make diplomatic deals with such dictator, but Blair (2013) in his work about coup attempts does not propose to make deals with tyrants. The author advices the US military leaders to influence military leaders from authoritarian regimes so that they would raise the army against the despotic leader (Blair, 2013, Chapter 6). Of course, the example of Philippines by Blair (2013) does not resemble the North Korean one by several reasons. First, the military leader of North Korea is Kim Jong Un himself. Secondly, there is no protests that can escalate the armed conflict between civilians and ruling power. However, citizens would most probably hate (even if they do not openly demonstrate it) such leader that promotes the politics of oppression, constant violation of human rights and free will. Moreover, there are probably a decent amount of such people among the political and military elites, considering the barbaric repression methods of Jong Un. Therefore, the United States should certainly seek to try the method described by Blair, either with the help of its intelligence or entrism. Finally, there is a little possibility of elite rejecting the coup proposition on the threshold of mutually assured destruction.
_____________
Links and references:

Blair, Dennis C. 2013. Military Engagement: Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide to Support
Democratic Transitions. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-boosts-military-firepower-10259767

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/us-aircraft-carrier-carl-vinson-north-korea-strike-capabilities/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-russia-idUSKBN0UK14Y20160106

“Vinson” Carrier’s Missing: Trump-Pentagon’s miscommunication?

Aidana Sapuan

In response to growing tensions in the Korean Peninsula and increasing number of nuclear tests by the North Korea, President Trump made a drastic order to head “an armada” - the US Aircraft carrier group named “Vinson” from Singapore in the northern direction towards the abovementioned region. The vast majority of public has interpreted this move as an act of deterring North Korea and showing-off the US military capabilities, as Trump puts it: “Very powerful, we have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you” in an interview with Fox News Business .

The most shocking revelation came out when Trump’s decision was an act of bluffing, since official photos on the US Navy website indicated that the carrier was thousands of kilometers away in the southern direction from the Korean Peninsula2. US military officials made an announcement that “Vinson” will first complete the joint military exercise with the Australian military, thereby disproving the implementation of Trump’s official order to head the carriers in an opposite direction. A little later, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told that the joint exercises had been cancelled and from now on the carriers will be heading back to the North Korea.

All of these confusions in reports both by President Trump and  military officials (such as DoD, Pentagon, Mattis) raises thoughts about many important aspects of today’s civil military relations in the USA. The conventional wisdom of US civil military relations has at least two fundamental premises framed by the constitution: 1) the president is the commander in chief of the US Army, and by ordering special operations he is held accountable for them; 2) the president has to be aware of the state and locations of different items of the country’s military assets, and to be able to employ them in the times of need. In the context of these responsibilities put before the newly elected US President, wrongly announcing the deployment of the 97.000-ton carrier and its 60-plus aircraft against the country with unpredictable changes in its foreign policy like North Korea, to put it mildly, decreases the level of credibility and trust attributed to Trump by the public.

The other issue is grounded in the ambiguity around questions of “who?” and “why?” ordered “Vinson” to steam towards North Korea. Due to this confusion between different US military structures in their reports about Vinson’s whereabouts, it is very difficult to understand, which of these actors were involved in the command formulation process. From the point of civil-military relations, this might have a huge degrading effect for the US current state of CMR since it would mean that military is losing some of its advisory responsibilities before the state, which were strongly advocated by Huntington’s (1957) theory of objective control.

One of the possibilities is that the decision about “Vinson’s” deployment was made by Trump’s administration, which does not cause problems in legal terms, since such kind of operational decision-making under threat to US national security is the presidential prerogative. Nevertheless, following inconsistencies in reports do show the lack of inter-organizational coordination between the civilian leadership and Pentagon highlights the lack of expertise of the executive and makes the functioning of Trump as a chief commander of the US Army less effective.

___________
Reference list:
Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State the Theory and Politics of Civil- Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Web Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/19/asia/uss-carl-vinson-north-korea-timeline/
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-in-a-nuclear-standoff-with-north-korea-trump-s/article_48f8c4aa-81f2-5494-916e-c27ef6c4a5a1.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests