An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China

[Pat]

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Holding China Responsible For North Korean Attacks
From: Pat
Date: Wed, February 21, 2018 10:47 pm MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I just finished reading your Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz and was intrigued by your recommendation in Q&A-35 and Q&A-36 that instead of submitting to North Korean nuclear blackmail and trying to bribe China into restraining North Korea by abandoning America’s attempt to recapture American jobs from China, America should simply hold China responsible for any North Korean aggression.

Could you elaborate on why you think such a policy would comport with international law and why you think such a policy could be successful?

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Thu, February 22, 2018 9:41 pm MST
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Thank you very much for your e-mail. And sorry to take so long to respond but today was a beautiful ski day.

****************************************
THE CASE FOR COMPORTING WITH INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

*****
The Law of Agency

The legal doctrine that you are responsible for acts of your agents is nearly universal.

It is a “bed rock” principle of English common law which prevails in virtually all of the world’s former English colonies.

And it is a “bed rock” principle of the Napoleonic Code which prevails in virtually all countries on the European continent, including Germany.

The reason, of course, for mentioning Germany is that its version of the Napoleonic Code could not be adopted until after the Unification of Germany in 1871 (50 years after the death of Napoleon) -- so as the most advanced version of the Napoleonic Code (since it took into account more than a half century of experience in other European countries), IT WAS USED AS THE TEMPLATE for the Civil Code of many non-European countries including Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Brazil AND THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

Accordingly, it is no surprise that the “bed rock” principle that you are responsible for the acts of your agents is embodied in the Civil Code which China adopted in 1987, an English text of which is available at scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3990&context=lcp.

*****
Whether North Korea is the Agent of China

The simplest explanation of agency is that you are paying someone to act on your behalf either with respect to a particular objective (limited agency) or with respect to anything under the sun (general agency).

And you are responsible for any acts committed by your agent WITHIN THE SCOPE of the agency.

For example, if a limited agent has been hired to assassinate someone (a classic limited agency) and runs over someone on the way to the assassination, the “running over” incident is WITHIN THE SCOPE of the agency. But if the assassin was simply driving to the grocery store and back for food (vs. assassination supplies), the “running over” is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of the agency.

So is North Korea a creature of China???

Per http://www.cia.gov, North Korea’s annual per capita income of $1,700 (with an unemployment rate of 25.6%) is propped up with $2.99 billion/year of exports (85.6% of which go to China) and $3.75 billion/year of imports (90.3% of which come from China).

But even more importantly, China supplies North Korea with its energy (petroleum and coking coal imports from China) absent which North Korea’s economy could not function and its population would quickly freeze/starve.

And China presumably picks up the tab for North Korea’s foreign-trade deficit ($3.75 billion/year of imports less $2.99 billion/year of exports).

This is why all of our foreign-policy experts have chorused that China is the key to bringing North Korea to heel.

But it is also the reason why North Korea is the creature of China or, in other words, China’s agent, ready and willing to do China’s bidding.

So what does China want from its agent???

Obviously two things --

A “look Ma, no hands” nuclear threat to the U.S. that will cause the U.S. to spend zillions on new armaments and zillions on various policies that will never solve the problem.

A “look Ma, no hands” nuclear threat to blackmail the U.S. into forgetting about recovering American jobs in return for restraining the activities of its North Korea agent -- if one is charitable in viewing “comforting words” as actually restraining anything.

*****
The Law of Nuisance

The legal doctrine that you are responsible to others for any nuisance conducted by you.

For example, if you have toxic chemicals on your property which cause cancer for your neighbors, you are liable both civilly and criminally for the harm you have caused your neighbors.

And, for example, if you have a pet that is capable of killing human beings and you permit it to exercise by running wild in the neighborhood for an hour each evening during which it in fact does kill human beings, you are liable both civilly and criminally for those deaths.

*****
The Law of Nuisance Around the World

Contrary to Julius Caesar’s assertion that “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres” (Latin for “all of modern-day France is divided into three parts”), an international attorney would assert that “ALL OF THE WORLD, NOT JUST FRANCE, IS DIVIDED INTO ONLY TWO PARTS”!!!

One part comprises English common-law jurisdictions resulting from the British Empire.

And the other comprises Napoleonic-Code jurisdictions resulting from the empires of European continental powers such as France, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Portugal. And, as described above, from China and Japan patterning their Civil Codes after Germany’s Napoleonic Code.

The Law of Nuisance is a “bed rock” principle of English common-law in virtually all of the former English colonies (which includes the United States).

A confession???

I am NOT expert enough in the Napoleonic Code to know whether the Law of Nuisance (or a reasonable facsimile) is a “bed rock” principle of the Napoleonic Code.

Perhaps someone else has time “to chase that rabbit”!!!

Or perhaps one of my many friends who are European attorneys could opine for us!!!

****************************************
HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF NUCLEAR COUNTRIES REACTING TO THE NUCLEAR THREATS OF THEIR AGENTS AND/OR THE “NUISANCE” OF THE NUCLEAR THREATS OF THEIR LETHAL PETS

*****
The Cuban Missile “Crisis”

Q&A-23 through Q&A-26 of the Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz (posted in the “Participant Comments” section for our 3/14/2018 meeting on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org) discusses what was really happening during the so-called Cuban Missile “Crisis” as revealed by Khrushchev’s cablegrams that became public following Glasnost.

Yes, Khrushchev “crapped in his pants” (please pardon “my French”) at the thought of what Fidel Castro was proposing to do with the Russian missiles in Cuba -- AND RUSSIA’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST THAT RUSSIA’S AGENT WAS PROPOSING TO UNLEASH!!!

Obviously, Khrushchev didn’t think for a moment that if Fidel Castro fired the Russian missiles at the U.S., the U.S. would confine its nuclear retaliation to Cuba!!!

*****
Kissinger Being Forced To Save Israel From Annihilation (Literally) in 1973

Q&A-33 and Q&A-34 of the Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz (posted in the “Participant Comments” section for our 3/14/2018 meeting on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org) discusses what was really happening during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

Yes, Kissinger “crapped in his pants” (please pardon “my French”) at the thought of what Israel was literally “within minutes” of doing in accordance with its long-standing policy of firing its 7 nuclear missiles if Israel reached the point of “only 24 hours to go to complete annihilation (literally)”!!!

Why did Kissinger “crap in his pants”???

Because the Israeli nuclear missiles were aimed at 7 Russian cities in recognition that the Soviet Union had been responsible for stirring up Arab resentment against Israel since its creation in 1948.

[As the Soviet Union - Russian Federation has continued to do to this day, assisted since 1979 by Iran!!!]

Would Kissinger have “crapped in his pants” if the Israeli missiles had been aimed at 7 Arab capitals???

Presumably NOT!!!

Because no Arab nations had nukes with which to retaliate against anyone, much less the U.S.

Obviously, Kissinger realized in an instant that Israel nuking 7 Russia cities would result in all-out Russian nuclear retaliation against the U.S.

Just like Fidel Castro’s 1962 proposal to fire all of his Russian missiles against the U.S. would be met by all-out American nuclear retaliation against the Soviet Union -- NOT Cuba!!!

*****
Law School 101 Hypothetical Q Regarding the Real-Life Case of Ukraine

Q&A-12 through Q&A-14 of the Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz (posted in the “Participant Comments” section for our 3/14/2018 meeting on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org) discusses how when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) broke up, 1900 Soviet multiple-warhead nuclear missiles were located in the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic which had been a member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1922-1991.

The Law School 101 Hypothetical Q???

Suppose that during the Cold War, some or all of the 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles had been fired SOLELY FROM the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic at the United States???

Does anyone think seriously that the American nuclear response would have been carefully tailored to target only the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic???

****************************************
THE CASE FOR THE SUCCESS OF HOLDING CHINA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NUCEAR THREATS OF CHINA’S AGENT AND/OR LETHAL PET

Responsibility for the actions of one’s agent is well established in the legal systems of virtually every country on earth, including the China Civil Code.

And responsibility for the nuclear threats of one’s de facto agent (as the foregoing discussion demonstrates North Korea to be vis-à-vis China), was recognized by --

(1) Khrushchev during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis;

(2) Kissinger in 1973 when Israel had “less than 24 hours to go to complete annihilation (literally)” and was about to nuke 7 Russian cities; and

(3) The Law School 101 hypothetical Q of whether the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) could have expected the American nuclear response to being hit with 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles FIRED SOLELY FROM THE UKRAINE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, would be confined to targeting Ukraine.

********************
China’s Response To A Credible American Nuclear Threat Per Leslie Gelb

*****
Who is Leslie Gelb???

The father of Peter Gelb, General Manager of the Metropolitan Opera since 2006.

But, more importantly, he was inter alia --

(1) President of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations 1993-2003 and as such, Publisher of Foreign Affairs (the premier American foreign-policy magazine);

(2) NY Times Pulitzer-Prize-winning long-time (1981-1993) columnist, op-ed page editor and deputy editorial-page editor, after serving as NY Times diplomatic correspondent 1973-1977; and

(3) The author/compiler of the famous “Pentagon Papers” which Defense Secretary Robert McNamara had wanted created/preserved SECRETLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT because McNamara wanted preserved the record of how, in his opinion, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had lied repeatedly to the American people about the Vietnam War.

*****
Leslie Gelb’s Report of China’s Response To A Credible American Nuclear Threat

For our 2/8/2012 meeting 6 years ago, we used as our focus book for our meeting which was entitled “Real Politik (aka National Interest) and Libya vs. Iran,” Leslie Gelb’s “Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy” (Harper Collins - 2009).

Yes, most of us remember that President Harry Truman famously “cashiered” General Douglas MacArthur for wanting to chase the zillions of Chinese troops fighting for North Korea back across the Yalu-River border between China and North Korea and MORE IMPORTANTLY for wanting to nuke China if it continued to send Chinese troops to support North Korea.

But do any of us remember how President Eisenhower was able to end the Korean War (though technically only an “armistice” exists to this day) on 7/27/1953, only 6 months after assuming the Presidency on 1/20/1953???

In the approximately 900 thick historical tomes/biographies that I have read during the last 50 years, I have only seen the answer in Leslie Gelb’s “Power Rules”!!!

When former WW-II Supreme Allied European Commander Dwight Eisenhower became President, he simply “took a page from General Douglas MacArthur” and told China that he would nuke China “back to the stone age” unless China called a halt to North Korea’s aggression!!!

And does anyone think for a moment that China viewed Eisenhower’s NUCLEAR ULTIMATUM as credible merely because he had been disciplining students as President of Columbia University 1948-1952???

********************
THE LACK OF ANY NEED TO COMPORT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW -- AS EVIDENCED BY CHINESE BEHAVIOR IN THE SO-CALLED SOUTH CHINA SEA

The so-called South China Sea is a portion of the Pacific Ocean which extends more than 1,000 miles south from the coast of China through the 400-500 mile wide opening between Vietnam and The Philippines and then between Malaysia and Indonesia.

China claims ownership of virtually all of the South China Sea, even though virtually all of it is outside any country’s traditional international-law 3-mile limit (the range of cannons), or the 12-mile limit provided in the 1982 U.N. Convention on The Law of the Sea.

[The U.N. Convention did recognize a 200-mile exclusive “economic zone” for such things as commercial fishing.]

If there are islands, then whether independent or owned by a nearby country, the islands themselves have 3-mile and 12-mile limits.

HOWEVER, during the last decade or so, China has been CREATING in the South China Sea between Vietnam and The Philippines and far from the China coast, man-made islands by dredging surrounding sea beds and depositing the sea-floor dredgings inside man-made containment walls!!!

AND THEN BUILDING AIRFIELDS AND OTHER MILITARY INSTALLATIONS on the man-made islands.

So when dealing with China, why would anyone in their right mind think that s/he should have to have a legal justification for issuing an ultimatum to China???

********************
Conclusion

Does anyone seriously think that we will solve the “crab grass problem” that is China’s North Korea with anything short of holding China responsible for North Korea with a Cold War MAD policy???

Otherwise, we would bargain away any hope of recovering American jobs that have been exported to China in exchange for some “comforting words” that amount to nothing more than self-delusion.

Which only means that the “crab grass problem” will grow back in short order.

At which point will we agree to give China 50% of our Gross Domestic Product for nothing other than a promise to restrain North Korea from nuking us???

And if we agree to such nuclear blackmail, where will it stop??? 60%??? 70%??? 80??? 90???

And what if China’s estimate of our GDP exceeds our actual GDP???

Sorry to be so morose, but our pols really have to develop some spine!!! Aren’t there any pols left who understand nuclear diplomacy???

*****
Q&A-36 Ruminations About Japan and South Korea Becoming Nuclear Powers

BTW, please permit me to comment before you reply with a question about Q&A-36 of the Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz (posted in the “Participant Comments” section for our 3/14/2018 meeting on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org) which had ended with --

“in line with French President/General Charles de Gaulle’s policy of pulling France out of NATO and developing French nukes to provide what the Soviets would consider a credible threat (rather than relying on the so-called “American nuclear umbrella”) --

wouldn’t the South Koreans and the Japanese each be wise to develop their own “Force de Frappe” to provide a MAD response that the Chinese would consider credible???”

So far as I am aware, American diplomacy during the current imbroglio has only featured sanctions accompanied by statements from President Trump about how he would be willing to “go easy” on China vis-à-vis trade in exchange for Chinese promises to restrain North Korea.

And a military option recently described by his top advisers as giving North Korea “a bloody nose.”

Bloody noses heal, just like crab grass grows back!!!

And linking trade issues with nuclear blackmail just invites, as history demonstrates, more outrageous blackmail demands!!!

All of our so-called “experts” point to the fact that South Korea’s capital of Seoul contains 10 million souls within its city limits and 25 million souls in its metropolitan area.

And Seoul is only 20 miles from North Korea, well within range of artillery and other conventional weapons.

So why do our so-called “experts” PERMIT China and North Korea to “hold hostage” Seoul???

First, a lot has been written about how China is deathly afraid of Japan and South Korea becoming nuclear powers.

As well they should, similarly to how the old Soviet Union respected French President/General Charles de Gaulle and his “Force de Frappe.”

Secondly, both Japan and South Korea have for decades had the technology to produce nuclear weapons “at the drop of a hat” and have held back because of America’s nuclear-non-proliferation policy and, in the case of Japan, the apparent belief in the wake of having been the only country to have been nuked, that refusing to develop their own nukes will somehow protect them from being nuked again (rather than being a “sitting duck” for a nuclear attack).

But most important, if the U.S., Japan and South Korea were all nuclear powers, then similarly to Charles de Gaulle’s France, each would have to be considered separately by the Chinese.

And yes, if North Korea fires its nuclear weapons at Japan, then Japan would probably fire its nukes at China.

Just like the U.S. would do if North Korea fires its nuclear weapons at the U.S. citizens of Guam, the U.S. citizens of American Samoa, the U.S. citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. citizens of the Hawaiian Islands, the U.S. citizens of Alaska or the U.S. citizens of the continental United States.

Chinese leaders can’t be so stupid as to believe that if their North Korean agent/pest attacked Japan or the U.S., Japan or the U.S. would direct their retaliation at North Korea!!!

And Chinese leaders can’t be so stupid as to believe that if their North Korean agent/pest attacked Japan or the U.S., THERE WOULD BE NO RESPONSE simply because North Korea has a hostage in the form of Seoul!!!

[Though, at the same time, Japan and the U.S. presumably would remain allies of South Korea, joining in its defense if it were attacked (though perhaps in only a one-way alliance in which South Korea and its hostage capital would not be expected to come to the aid of Japan or the U.S. if either of them were attacked).]

So let’s stop treating the Chinese leaders as stupid!!!

And treat them as knowing what they already know!!!

Your friend,

John K.

[Pat]

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China
From: Pat
Date: Fri, February 23, 2018 2:54 pm MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

Thank you for your response which I have just posted on our bulletin board.

You sound like you really understand nuclear diplomacy -- is there any particular reason?

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, February 23, 2018 11:19 pm MST
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

Yes, there is a particular reason why I know a fair amount about nuclear diplomacy.

During my 50 years of reading approximately 900 thick historical tomes/biographies, there have been two particular areas of interest.

My all-time favorite historical hero was Winston Churchill, as a result of which I have probably read everything written by him or about him.

But my all-time favorite subject was nuclear diplomacy -- learning at the foot (at least initially) of the master, Henry Kissinger -- as a result of which I have probably read everything written by him.

The reason for the claim -- “learning at the foot (at least initially)”???

When I was a student at Harvard Law School 1964-1967, Henry Kissinger was a Professor in Harvard’s Political Science Department (before it began calling itself Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government).

I’ve forgotten whether it was my first or second year at HLS, but a seminar on Nuclear Diplomacy was offered jointly by HLS and the Political Science Department.

It was scheduled to be taught jointly by Prof. Kissinger and HLS Prof. W. Barton Leach.

I have no idea why Prof. Leach was scheduled as a joint presenter with Prof. Kissinger since Prof. Leach was a property-law professor and had co-authored the-then most popular property-law casebook with Prof. A. James Casner.

At the beginning of the very first class, Prof. Kissinger insulted Prof. Leach’s nuclear-diplomacy qualifications and Prof. Leach walked out, never to return.

At that time, Prof. Kissinger was the world’s recognized expert on nuclear diplomacy, having already authored the definitive book in the field -- “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy” (1957) -- as well as authoring books on subjects that were tangentially related -- “A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822” (1957); “The Necessity of Choice: Prospects for American Foreign Policy” (1961); and “The Troubled Partnership: A Re-Appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance” (1965 – which was available pre-publication for our course in working-copy form).

Although I couldn’t take the course for credit because the first and second year curricula for HLS in those days permitted no elective courses, I attended every session of Prof. Kissinger’s course and probably spent more time on it than the rest of my courses combined.

And never looked back!!!

Probably reading everything ever written by Henry Kissinger and most erudite offerings by other experts in the field.

Thank you again for your e-mail. Such memories make an old man feel young again!!!

Your friend,

John K.