Background information
The most commonly used dates for the conflict are 1959-1975. This period begins with North Vietnam's first guerilla attacks against the South and ends with the fall of Saigon. American ground forces were directly involved in the war between 1965 and 1973.
In August 1964, a US warship was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Following this attack, Congress passed the Southeast Asia Resolution which allowed President Lyndon Johnson to conduct military operations in the region without a declaration of war. On March 2, 1965, US aircraft began bombing targets in Vietnam and the first troops arrived. Commanded by General William Westmoreland, US troops won victories over Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces around Chu Lai and in the Ia Drang Valley that summer. Americanization of the Vietnam War
Following these defeats, the North Vietnamese avoided fighting conventional battles and focused on engaging US troops in small unit actions in the sweltering jungles of South Vietnam. In January 1968, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong launched the massive Tet Offensive. Beginning with an assault on US Marines at Khe Sanh, the offensive included attacks by the Viet Cong on cities throughout South Vietnam. Though the North Vietnamese were beaten back with heavy casualties, Tet shook the confidence of the American people and media who had thought the war was going well.
The Tet Offensive
As a result of Tet, President Lyndon Johnson opted not to run for reelection and was succeeded by Richard Nixon. Nixon's plan for ending US involvement was to build up the ARVN so that they could fight the war themselves. As this process of “Vietnamization” began, US troops started to return home. The mistrust of the government that had begun after Tet worsened with the release of news about US soldiers massacring civilians at My Lai (1969), the invasion of Cambodia (1970), and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers (1971). Vietnamization of the Vietnam War
The withdrawal of US troops continued and more responsibility was passed to the ARVN, which continued to prove ineffective in combat, often relying on American support to stave off defeat. On January 27, 1974, a peace accord was signed in Paris ending the conflict. By March of that year, American combat troops had left the country. After a brief period of peace, North Vietnam recommenced hostilities in late 1974. Pushing through ARVN forces with ease, they captured the Saigon on April 30, 1975, forcing South Vietnam’s surrender and reuniting the country. The End of the Vietnam War
United States: 58,119 killed, 153,303 wounded, 1,948 missing in action
South Vietnam 230,000 killed and 1,169,763 wounded (estimated)
North Vietnam 1,100,000 killed in action (estimated) and an unknown number of wounded
Summary
The Vietnam War first began in 1959, five years after the division of the country by the Geneva Accords. Vietnam had been split into two, with a communist government in the north under Ho Chi Minh and a democratic government in the south under Ngo Dinh Diem. Ho launched a guerilla campaign in South Vietnam, led by Viet Cong units, with the goal of uniting the country under communist rule. The United States, seeking to stop the spread of communism, trained the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and provided military advisors to help combat the guerillas. These resulted in a war, known generally as the Vietnam War.
Evaluation
While differences in political views may result in conflicts, it is still now the case of many disagreements in many countries. One example would be in Korea, where there is a division of the North and South korea with different political stand. Efforts have been made in recent years to bridge the gap between the 2 countries, but with little results. The two countries even had to have a third party(other countries) to help them settle the differences between them.
The differences in political views can be traced back to the history of the respective region. The history of the country determines the way the country is governed today. However, given if the government/ruler decides to change the way he runs the country, it can still be made to work, together with the support of the citizens. One example is in Singapore, where she changes her government ruling system ever since she gained independence
All in all, despite the differences that exist between the 2 countries, we must always note that we cannot afford to have war and conflicts all the time. Living in such a small world, where all of us are interconnected and largely dependent on one another, it is important to maintain stability and peace. I this way, we can focus more on dealing with climatic issues and economic development, which are now the more crucial issue in a modern world.
Showing posts with label asia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asia. Show all posts
Six party talks with North Korea
The Six-Party Talks are aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear program through a negotiating process involving China, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan, and Russia. Since the talks began in August 2003, the negotiations have been bedeviled by diplomatic standoffs among individual Six-Party member states – particularly between the United States and North Korea. In April 2009, North Korea quit the talks and announced that it would reverse the ongoing disablement process called for under the Six-Party agreements and restart its Yongbyon nuclear facilities. Because Pyongyang appears intent on maintaining its nuclear program, some experts are pessimistic the talks can achieve anything beyond managing the North Korean threat. The Obama administration has been pursuing talks with the other four countries in the process to bring Pyongyang back to the negotiation table. Alongside the United Nations' effort to sanction North Korea's nuclear and missile tests, "this regional partnership between the United States and the countries of Northeast Asia remains the best vehicle ... for building stable relationships on and around the Korean peninsula," writes CFR's Sheila Smith.
So far, the Six-Party Talks have failed to denuclearize North Korea and have brought few results. Several experts think North Korea is now determined to be recognized as a nuclear weapons state rather than to negotiate an end to its nuclear program. Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger writes in the Washington Post that "the issue for diplomacy has become whether the goal should be to manage North Korea's nuclear arsenal or to eliminate it." He argues any policy that does not eliminate the North's nuclear military capability "in effect acquiesces in its continuation."
After Pyongyang walked out of the Six-Party Talks in May 2009, the Obama administration has pursued negotiations with the other parties in the forum to signal that it hasn't abandoned the goal of North Korea's denuclearization. In testimony to a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee in June 2009, CFR's Snyder said this new process "provides the best available means by which to increase pressure on North Korea to return to the Six-Party Talks and to honor its commitments to denuclearization."
So far, the Six-Party Talks have failed to denuclearize North Korea and have brought few results. Several experts think North Korea is now determined to be recognized as a nuclear weapons state rather than to negotiate an end to its nuclear program. Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger writes in the Washington Post that "the issue for diplomacy has become whether the goal should be to manage North Korea's nuclear arsenal or to eliminate it." He argues any policy that does not eliminate the North's nuclear military capability "in effect acquiesces in its continuation."
After Pyongyang walked out of the Six-Party Talks in May 2009, the Obama administration has pursued negotiations with the other parties in the forum to signal that it hasn't abandoned the goal of North Korea's denuclearization. In testimony to a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee in June 2009, CFR's Snyder said this new process "provides the best available means by which to increase pressure on North Korea to return to the Six-Party Talks and to honor its commitments to denuclearization."
Weapons of War: Kamikaze pilots
Kamikaze (神風, common translation: "divine wind")refers to the suicide attacks by military aviators from the Empire of Japan against Allied naval vessels in the closing stages of the Pacific campaign of World War II, designed to destroy as many warships as possible.
Kamikaze pilots would attempt to intentionally crash their aircraft – often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks – into Allied ships. The aircraft's normal functions, to deliver torpedoes or bombs or shoot down other aircraft, were put aside, and the planes were converted to what were essentially manned missiles, in a desperate attempt to reap the benefits of greatly increased accuracy and payload over that of normal bombs. The goal of crippling as many Allied capital ships as possible was considered critical enough to warrant the sacrifice of aviators and aircraft.
The Kamikaze attack tactic was first suggested by vice-Admiral Onishi of the Japanese Navy, when he was assigned to command the air attacks against the huge American invasion fleet off the Philippines. He realized that he had less than 100 operational aircraft for this task. Since there was no way to sink or even severely damage the American fleet in any conventional tactic, the Admiral sought to find a way to get a significantly greater striking power from a given force.
The solution was obvious. Guided weapons provide dramatically greater accuracy and lethality than unguided weapons. Such weapons already existed and were operational for over a year then, but not in Japan. Therefore Admiral Onishi suggested that volunteer pilots guide their bomb-carrying aircraft all the way to an explosive suicide collision with their American warship targets, acting as a living guidance system, literally becoming "smart bombs".
The new tactic was adopted immediately. Large numbers of pilots initially qualified and experienced pilots and later air cadets with minimal training who were asked to volunteer, were assigned to "Special Attack" air wings, the official name of the Kamikaze units. Their goal and motto was "One man - one ship".
A total of about 5000 Kamikaze pilots were launched, mostly in the Battle of Okinawa, consuming much of the remaining human and material resources of Japanese air power. The result of their effort was 36 sunk American ships and landing craft, and 368 damaged. The ferocity of watching wave after wave of Kamikaze pilots hurtling down through a dense hail of anti-aircraft fire, and the enormous fiery explosions which followed, terrorized the Americans, but the Kamikaze campaign failed to achieve its strategic goal of stopping the American advance, and American air attacks were launched against the Kamikaze air bases in southern Japan in order to reduce their numbers. Japan lost its last battle despite the enormous sacrifice of its fanatic warriors, and lost the war.
Kamikaze pilots would attempt to intentionally crash their aircraft – often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks – into Allied ships. The aircraft's normal functions, to deliver torpedoes or bombs or shoot down other aircraft, were put aside, and the planes were converted to what were essentially manned missiles, in a desperate attempt to reap the benefits of greatly increased accuracy and payload over that of normal bombs. The goal of crippling as many Allied capital ships as possible was considered critical enough to warrant the sacrifice of aviators and aircraft.
The Kamikaze attack tactic was first suggested by vice-Admiral Onishi of the Japanese Navy, when he was assigned to command the air attacks against the huge American invasion fleet off the Philippines. He realized that he had less than 100 operational aircraft for this task. Since there was no way to sink or even severely damage the American fleet in any conventional tactic, the Admiral sought to find a way to get a significantly greater striking power from a given force.
The solution was obvious. Guided weapons provide dramatically greater accuracy and lethality than unguided weapons. Such weapons already existed and were operational for over a year then, but not in Japan. Therefore Admiral Onishi suggested that volunteer pilots guide their bomb-carrying aircraft all the way to an explosive suicide collision with their American warship targets, acting as a living guidance system, literally becoming "smart bombs".
The new tactic was adopted immediately. Large numbers of pilots initially qualified and experienced pilots and later air cadets with minimal training who were asked to volunteer, were assigned to "Special Attack" air wings, the official name of the Kamikaze units. Their goal and motto was "One man - one ship".
A total of about 5000 Kamikaze pilots were launched, mostly in the Battle of Okinawa, consuming much of the remaining human and material resources of Japanese air power. The result of their effort was 36 sunk American ships and landing craft, and 368 damaged. The ferocity of watching wave after wave of Kamikaze pilots hurtling down through a dense hail of anti-aircraft fire, and the enormous fiery explosions which followed, terrorized the Americans, but the Kamikaze campaign failed to achieve its strategic goal of stopping the American advance, and American air attacks were launched against the Kamikaze air bases in southern Japan in order to reduce their numbers. Japan lost its last battle despite the enormous sacrifice of its fanatic warriors, and lost the war.
World War II: Japanese chemical warfare
One of weapons of war the Japanese used in World War II is the use of chemical warfare. The example of the Changde chemical weapon attack had the use of chemical and biological weapons by Japan during the Battle of Changde in the Chinese Province of Hunan in April and May, 1943. In the intense fighting around Changde, Japanese forces could not push through the heavy Chinese resistance, and decided to launch poison gas artillery shells into the city, which possibly contained mustard gas or lewisite. This action was undertaken by Unit 516 of the Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War. This and other units used assorted types of chemicals in liquid or gaseous form, including mustard gas, lewisite, cyanic acid gas and phosgene in experimental and some operational uses during hostile actions against China. This was effective in spreading fear, terror and death to devastating effect against both humans and livestock.
Furthermore, the Imperial Japanese Army had tested cyanide gas on Australian and Dutch East Indies prisoners of war in 1944 in Indonesia's Kai Islands. A document found in the Australian national archives in Canberra details Japan's experiments on an Australian POW. The Japanese army's Unit 731 is widely known for experimenting on Chinese in north-eastern China with germs and chemical weapons during World War II. According to the document, a lieutenant in charge of poison gas at the No. 5 Division of the army threw bottles of cyanide gas on an Australian air force captain and a sergeant of the Dutch East Indies air force. The gas was designed for antitank warfare. The division's lieutenant colonel had ordered the lieutenant to test the effectiveness of the gas. After the POWs collapsed, Japanese military police stabbed them to death with bayonets. The lieutenant and the lieutenant colonel were sentenced to death by hanging by the military tribunal, according to the document.
The Japanese army had secretly engaged in chemical warfare -- banned under international law -- in China since shortly after the war there started in 1937. In July 1944, the General Staff Office of the Japanese army, responding to a warning from U.S. authorities for a reprisal, issued an order for banning the use of poison gas by the army. But the disclosed records show that such orders were not heeded among officers on the battle fronts facing the prospect of imminent enemy offensives.
Furthermore, the Imperial Japanese Army had tested cyanide gas on Australian and Dutch East Indies prisoners of war in 1944 in Indonesia's Kai Islands. A document found in the Australian national archives in Canberra details Japan's experiments on an Australian POW. The Japanese army's Unit 731 is widely known for experimenting on Chinese in north-eastern China with germs and chemical weapons during World War II. According to the document, a lieutenant in charge of poison gas at the No. 5 Division of the army threw bottles of cyanide gas on an Australian air force captain and a sergeant of the Dutch East Indies air force. The gas was designed for antitank warfare. The division's lieutenant colonel had ordered the lieutenant to test the effectiveness of the gas. After the POWs collapsed, Japanese military police stabbed them to death with bayonets. The lieutenant and the lieutenant colonel were sentenced to death by hanging by the military tribunal, according to the document.
The Japanese army had secretly engaged in chemical warfare -- banned under international law -- in China since shortly after the war there started in 1937. In July 1944, the General Staff Office of the Japanese army, responding to a warning from U.S. authorities for a reprisal, issued an order for banning the use of poison gas by the army. But the disclosed records show that such orders were not heeded among officers on the battle fronts facing the prospect of imminent enemy offensives.
Weapons of War: Child Soldiers
Although this problem is most critical in Africa, where children as young as nine have been involved in armed conflicts, children are also used as soldiers in various Asian countries and in parts of Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. The majority of the world's child soldiers are involved in a variety of armed political groups. These include government-backed paramilitary groups, militias and self-defence units operating in many conflict zones. Others include armed groups opposed to central government rule, groups composed of ethnic religious and other minorities and clan-based or factional groups fighting governments and each other to defend territory and resources. Most child soldiers are aged between 14 and 18.
While many enlist “voluntarily", research shows that such adolescents see few alternatives to involvement in armed conflict. Some enlist as a means of survival in war-torn regions after family, social and economic structures collapse or after seeing family members tortured or killed by government forces or armed groups. Others join up because of poverty and lack of work or educational opportunities. Many girls have reported enlisting to escape domestic servitude, violence and sexual abuse. Forcible abductions, sometimes of large numbers of children, continue to occur in some countries. Children as young as nine have been abducted and used in combat.
Demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) programs specifically aimed at child soldiers have been established in many countries, both during and after armed conflict and have assisted former child soldiers to acquire new skills and return to their communities. However, the programs lack funds and adequate resources. Sustained long-term investment is needed if they are to be effective. Despite growing recognition of girls' involvement in armed conflict, girls are often deliberately or inadvertently excluded from DDR programs. Girl soldiers are frequently subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence as well as being involved in combat and other roles. In some cases they are stigmatized by their home communities when they return. DDR programs should be sensitively constructed and designed to respond to the needs of girl soldiers.
While many enlist “voluntarily", research shows that such adolescents see few alternatives to involvement in armed conflict. Some enlist as a means of survival in war-torn regions after family, social and economic structures collapse or after seeing family members tortured or killed by government forces or armed groups. Others join up because of poverty and lack of work or educational opportunities. Many girls have reported enlisting to escape domestic servitude, violence and sexual abuse. Forcible abductions, sometimes of large numbers of children, continue to occur in some countries. Children as young as nine have been abducted and used in combat.
Demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) programs specifically aimed at child soldiers have been established in many countries, both during and after armed conflict and have assisted former child soldiers to acquire new skills and return to their communities. However, the programs lack funds and adequate resources. Sustained long-term investment is needed if they are to be effective. Despite growing recognition of girls' involvement in armed conflict, girls are often deliberately or inadvertently excluded from DDR programs. Girl soldiers are frequently subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence as well as being involved in combat and other roles. In some cases they are stigmatized by their home communities when they return. DDR programs should be sensitively constructed and designed to respond to the needs of girl soldiers.
EU takes over Bosnian peacekeeping role from Nato
The European Union has taken over control of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina today (December 2), the largest mission the Union has ever embarked upon.
A ceremony in Sarajevo marked the historic conclusion of the Nato-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the launch of the European Union’s follow-on, EUFOR.
SFOR has been brought to a successful end almost exactly nine years since Nato deployed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, in what was the Alliance’s first peacekeeping operation.
The decision reflects the improved security situation in the country.
“Today is truly a day for celebration – for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also for the wider international community,” said Nato Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer at the handover ceremony.
He said the progress the country had made was unimaginable in the early 1990s. People no longer lived in fear, state institutions had been established and there was respect for human rights.
The successful end of SFOR does not spell the end of Nato’s engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, however. While the European Union assumes responsibility for peacekeeping operations, Nato will maintain a headquarters in Sarajevo to assist the country with defence reform.
It will also carry out some operational tasks, in co-ordination with the European Union, including counter-terrorism and assistance in apprehending persons indicted for war crimes.
The handover was also proof of the “developing cooperation between Nato and the European Union,” Mr. De Hoop Scheffer said.
The 7,000-strong EUFOR mission will be led by Britain and supported by Nato under the so-called ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements, which provide a framework for Nato-EU cooperation.
In reality the handover will mean little change on the ground, as some 80% of the troops currently serving under Nato's banner will simply swap their badges for those of EUFOR.
The ceremony, held at SFOR Headquarters, saw the mission’s flag replaced by the flag of EUFOR and the formal establishment of Nato’s new headquarters in Sarajevo.
A ceremony in Sarajevo marked the historic conclusion of the Nato-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the launch of the European Union’s follow-on, EUFOR.
SFOR has been brought to a successful end almost exactly nine years since Nato deployed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, in what was the Alliance’s first peacekeeping operation.
The decision reflects the improved security situation in the country.
“Today is truly a day for celebration – for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also for the wider international community,” said Nato Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer at the handover ceremony.
He said the progress the country had made was unimaginable in the early 1990s. People no longer lived in fear, state institutions had been established and there was respect for human rights.
The successful end of SFOR does not spell the end of Nato’s engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, however. While the European Union assumes responsibility for peacekeeping operations, Nato will maintain a headquarters in Sarajevo to assist the country with defence reform.
It will also carry out some operational tasks, in co-ordination with the European Union, including counter-terrorism and assistance in apprehending persons indicted for war crimes.
The handover was also proof of the “developing cooperation between Nato and the European Union,” Mr. De Hoop Scheffer said.
The 7,000-strong EUFOR mission will be led by Britain and supported by Nato under the so-called ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements, which provide a framework for Nato-EU cooperation.
In reality the handover will mean little change on the ground, as some 80% of the troops currently serving under Nato's banner will simply swap their badges for those of EUFOR.
The ceremony, held at SFOR Headquarters, saw the mission’s flag replaced by the flag of EUFOR and the formal establishment of Nato’s new headquarters in Sarajevo.
EU begins its first peacekeeping role
The European Union takes a small but significant step on to the world security stage today when it begins its maiden peacekeeping operation in the Balkans.
Sending a police mission to Bosnia to take over from the existing UN force is its first action under the the slowly evolving common policy for security and defence: areas zealously guarded by nation states.
It may also herald a more intense EU military involvement in Europe's turbulent "near abroad".
The 500 officers, commanded by a Danish police commissioner, will add blue berets and EU armbands to their national uniforms. Their task will be to train and monitor professional multi-ethnic local police forces in Bosnia, which is still struggling to rebuild its society after its 42-month war.
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy and security chief, said the deployment was "a strong symbol of the collective will of Europeans to act jointly in this key task of consolidating stability and security in our continent".
Officials in Brussels say the importance of the mission lies in the way its work is integrated into a wider approach to the Balkans, the one part of the world where the EU has developed an effective common foreign policy.
Organised crime has been identified as the single biggest threat to progress in the region, involving shadowy alliances between drug smugglers, corrupt politicians and extreme nationalist groups.
Under the stability pact for south-east Europe created after the Kosovan war in 1999, Balkan countries have been encouraged to reform with a view to forging a closer relationship with the EU.
Slovenia, the wealthiest of the former Yugoslav republics, is joining the union in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania are expected to join in 2007. Croatia said last week that it wanted to make a formal application to join.
The police mission could lead to far greater European military and security activity in the region. An agreement with Nato last month allows it to send peacekeeping troops to Macedonia, probably next spring.
Even more ambitiously, it has suggested that it might take over from Nato the command of the 12,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia.
Planners in Brussels are desperate to find missions for the EU's fledgling rapid reaction force, a unit of 60,000 soldiers designed for peacekeeping and humanitarian duties where Nato is not involved.
Sending a police mission to Bosnia to take over from the existing UN force is its first action under the the slowly evolving common policy for security and defence: areas zealously guarded by nation states.
It may also herald a more intense EU military involvement in Europe's turbulent "near abroad".
The 500 officers, commanded by a Danish police commissioner, will add blue berets and EU armbands to their national uniforms. Their task will be to train and monitor professional multi-ethnic local police forces in Bosnia, which is still struggling to rebuild its society after its 42-month war.
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy and security chief, said the deployment was "a strong symbol of the collective will of Europeans to act jointly in this key task of consolidating stability and security in our continent".
Officials in Brussels say the importance of the mission lies in the way its work is integrated into a wider approach to the Balkans, the one part of the world where the EU has developed an effective common foreign policy.
Organised crime has been identified as the single biggest threat to progress in the region, involving shadowy alliances between drug smugglers, corrupt politicians and extreme nationalist groups.
Under the stability pact for south-east Europe created after the Kosovan war in 1999, Balkan countries have been encouraged to reform with a view to forging a closer relationship with the EU.
Slovenia, the wealthiest of the former Yugoslav republics, is joining the union in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania are expected to join in 2007. Croatia said last week that it wanted to make a formal application to join.
The police mission could lead to far greater European military and security activity in the region. An agreement with Nato last month allows it to send peacekeeping troops to Macedonia, probably next spring.
Even more ambitiously, it has suggested that it might take over from Nato the command of the 12,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia.
Planners in Brussels are desperate to find missions for the EU's fledgling rapid reaction force, a unit of 60,000 soldiers designed for peacekeeping and humanitarian duties where Nato is not involved.
"Appeasement" in North Korea
North Korea has again played its nuclear card, after weeks of conciliatory gestures amid international sanctions against the North. North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency reported on September 4th that the North’s ambassador to the United Nations Sin Son-ho sent a letter describing the North’s nuclear activities to the chairman of the U.N. Security Council on September 3rd. According to the report, Pyongyang has reached the final stage of uranium enrichment and extracted plutonium is being weaponized. The North also threatened to further strengthen its nuclear deterrent if international sanctions continue. Dr. Jeon Seong-hun from the Korea Institute for National Unification speculates that North Korea is spurring efforts to secure a new source of nuclear fuel.
North Korea had previously vehemently denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. But through the recent letter sent to the U.N. Security Council, the North officially revealed it was operating such a program. Uranium enrichment does not require large-scale facilities, like the Yongbyon Complex. I suspect North Korea has completed experimental uranium enrichment and entered a phase in which the nation can start developing nuclear weapons. Currently, the nuclear weapons North Korea possesses are made from plutonium. If the North succeeds in nuclear development through uranium enrichment, it will be able to secure nuclear warheads in another form. This will give more room for the communist country to strengthen its nuclear capability.
The letter written by the top North Korean envoy at the United Nations says that Pyongyang does not feel any need to respond to the request made by the U.N. Security Council’s sanctions committee. Experts interpret this as a response to a “request for a clarification” from the sanctions committee, with regard to the seizure of a North Korean ship by the United Arab Emirates in August. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry announced the nation’s nuclear arms plan in June, but the experts note that the recent letter implies more progress in the nation’s nuclear development. They are also wondering why the North suddenly took out its nuclear card again, after weeks of appeasement efforts. Here again is Dr. Jeon.
Looking back North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, the North had always been focused on nuclear armament, while making conciliatory gestures to the United States or South Korea. So, Pyongyang’s secret nuclear development isn’t surprising. But it’s still disturbing that North Korea has unexpectedly revealed its intention to resume provocative action by officially disclosing its uranium enrichment program, even while making a peace offensive toward the U.S. and South Korea. At present, Pyongyang is subject to U.N. sanctions, which delay dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. against the North’s will. Therefore, the North seems to be attempting to pressure the U.S. by using what it believes is another negotiation card.
In another notable part of the letter, North Korea declares completion of uranium enrichment and plutonium weaponization, while also expressing a will to engage in dialogue. The North stresses that it is opposed to the structure of six-party nuclear talks that have been exploited to violate North Korea’s sovereignty but that the nation has never denied denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world. The North also says it is prepared for both dialogue and sanctions, indicating it will employ the two-pronged tactic of appeasement and threat. Regarding the North’s attitude, some speculate that the regime, which had declared a permanent boycott of the six-party talks, has now taken a step back from its previous position. But Dr. Jeon predicts it won’t be easy for North Korea to actually return to the multilateral negotiations.
When referring to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea is trying to change the security landscape in the region to its own advantage through nuclear arms reductions talks with the United States. Therefore, even if negotiations between the North and the U.S. begin, South Korea must carefully watch how the negotiations may evolve. North Korea wasn’t very enthusiastic about the six-party talks from the beginning. Pyongyang’s No.2 man Kim Yong-nam even declared a permanent end to the six-way talks. So, I don’t think the North is willing to return to the negotiations anytime soon. But North Korea is also well aware that both China and the United States remain firm in their positions about the six-party talks. Therefore, the basic frame of the six-party talks could be maintained, while actual negotiations are held between the North and the U.S. This variant form of the six-party talks, if possible, will be another option.
Meanwhile, U.S. special envoy for North Korea policy Stephen Bosworth, who recently wrapped up an Asian tour, says there’s no fundamental change in the North’s tactic. He also stresses that the U.S. will face North Korea within the framework of six-way talks or to facilitate the negotiations, although Pyongyang doggedly insists on bilateral dialogue with the U.S. A high-ranking official in South Korea says Seoul and Washington have shared the view on employing both dialogue and sanctions when dealing with Pyongyang. Experts predict that sanctions against the North will continue for the time being, and a cooling-off period will be needed before effectuating dialogue with North Korea.
As a matter of fact, the Obama administration hopes to initiate dialogue with North Korea, but it’s hard to do so right now because of North Korea’s series of aggressive measures. I imagine the current deadlock will continue until the year’s end, at least. We inevitably co-exist with nuclear-armed North Korea, whether we want it or not. At this point in time, it’s necessary to devise a broad strategy aimed at convincing North Korea that the possession of nuclear weapons won’t serve its own interests and inducing the country to give up its nuclear programs.
North Korea is using the “two-track” tactic, in which it plays the “pressure” card when it comes to the nuclear issue and the “appeasement” card in other matters. The international community is wondering how the North’s multi-dimensional move will affect the nuclear standoff. In collaboration with the international community, South Korea should seek a way to solve the nuclear issue through dialogue, not by further aggravating regional conflict.
North Korea had previously vehemently denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. But through the recent letter sent to the U.N. Security Council, the North officially revealed it was operating such a program. Uranium enrichment does not require large-scale facilities, like the Yongbyon Complex. I suspect North Korea has completed experimental uranium enrichment and entered a phase in which the nation can start developing nuclear weapons. Currently, the nuclear weapons North Korea possesses are made from plutonium. If the North succeeds in nuclear development through uranium enrichment, it will be able to secure nuclear warheads in another form. This will give more room for the communist country to strengthen its nuclear capability.
The letter written by the top North Korean envoy at the United Nations says that Pyongyang does not feel any need to respond to the request made by the U.N. Security Council’s sanctions committee. Experts interpret this as a response to a “request for a clarification” from the sanctions committee, with regard to the seizure of a North Korean ship by the United Arab Emirates in August. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry announced the nation’s nuclear arms plan in June, but the experts note that the recent letter implies more progress in the nation’s nuclear development. They are also wondering why the North suddenly took out its nuclear card again, after weeks of appeasement efforts. Here again is Dr. Jeon.
Looking back North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, the North had always been focused on nuclear armament, while making conciliatory gestures to the United States or South Korea. So, Pyongyang’s secret nuclear development isn’t surprising. But it’s still disturbing that North Korea has unexpectedly revealed its intention to resume provocative action by officially disclosing its uranium enrichment program, even while making a peace offensive toward the U.S. and South Korea. At present, Pyongyang is subject to U.N. sanctions, which delay dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. against the North’s will. Therefore, the North seems to be attempting to pressure the U.S. by using what it believes is another negotiation card.
In another notable part of the letter, North Korea declares completion of uranium enrichment and plutonium weaponization, while also expressing a will to engage in dialogue. The North stresses that it is opposed to the structure of six-party nuclear talks that have been exploited to violate North Korea’s sovereignty but that the nation has never denied denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world. The North also says it is prepared for both dialogue and sanctions, indicating it will employ the two-pronged tactic of appeasement and threat. Regarding the North’s attitude, some speculate that the regime, which had declared a permanent boycott of the six-party talks, has now taken a step back from its previous position. But Dr. Jeon predicts it won’t be easy for North Korea to actually return to the multilateral negotiations.
When referring to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea is trying to change the security landscape in the region to its own advantage through nuclear arms reductions talks with the United States. Therefore, even if negotiations between the North and the U.S. begin, South Korea must carefully watch how the negotiations may evolve. North Korea wasn’t very enthusiastic about the six-party talks from the beginning. Pyongyang’s No.2 man Kim Yong-nam even declared a permanent end to the six-way talks. So, I don’t think the North is willing to return to the negotiations anytime soon. But North Korea is also well aware that both China and the United States remain firm in their positions about the six-party talks. Therefore, the basic frame of the six-party talks could be maintained, while actual negotiations are held between the North and the U.S. This variant form of the six-party talks, if possible, will be another option.
Meanwhile, U.S. special envoy for North Korea policy Stephen Bosworth, who recently wrapped up an Asian tour, says there’s no fundamental change in the North’s tactic. He also stresses that the U.S. will face North Korea within the framework of six-way talks or to facilitate the negotiations, although Pyongyang doggedly insists on bilateral dialogue with the U.S. A high-ranking official in South Korea says Seoul and Washington have shared the view on employing both dialogue and sanctions when dealing with Pyongyang. Experts predict that sanctions against the North will continue for the time being, and a cooling-off period will be needed before effectuating dialogue with North Korea.
As a matter of fact, the Obama administration hopes to initiate dialogue with North Korea, but it’s hard to do so right now because of North Korea’s series of aggressive measures. I imagine the current deadlock will continue until the year’s end, at least. We inevitably co-exist with nuclear-armed North Korea, whether we want it or not. At this point in time, it’s necessary to devise a broad strategy aimed at convincing North Korea that the possession of nuclear weapons won’t serve its own interests and inducing the country to give up its nuclear programs.
North Korea is using the “two-track” tactic, in which it plays the “pressure” card when it comes to the nuclear issue and the “appeasement” card in other matters. The international community is wondering how the North’s multi-dimensional move will affect the nuclear standoff. In collaboration with the international community, South Korea should seek a way to solve the nuclear issue through dialogue, not by further aggravating regional conflict.
Appeasement efforts will only strengthen terrorism
Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.
Think about it. Currently, the United States has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the United States alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism — without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have — the western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the United States, but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?
Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.
I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current western modus operandi, has borne fruit.
What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid- '30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
Anyone who thinks current western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.
Think about it. Currently, the United States has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the United States alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism — without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have — the western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the United States, but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?
Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.
I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current western modus operandi, has borne fruit.
What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid- '30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
Anyone who thinks current western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.
NATO cooperation with Japan
NATO has its longest-standing Asian relationship with Japan. A strategic dialogue is ongoing since the early nineties: it involves high level discussions held alternatively in Japan or at NATO Headquarters in Brussels.
Both sides benefit from a regular, informal exchange of views. The more structured contacts were initiated at the first NATO-Japan exchange in 1990, on the Belgian coast. Biannual meetings have taken place since then. NATO’s Secretary General visited Tokyo in April 2005 and again in December 2007. The then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also adressed the North Atlantic Council in January 2007.
Political dialogue is gradually being complemented by practical cooperation. Japan’s support for peace and security-orientated operations in Afghanistan are valued by the Allies. The Japanese government has also committed several million Yen (over 3,800,000 million US dollars) in support of basic human needs projects in various regions of Afghanistan. The selection of projects is facilitated by NATO, with the identification of projects through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Japan recently appointed some liaison officers to a number of PRTs to support this programme. The country donated three million euros to the NATO Trust Fund Ammunition Stockpile.
In the 1990s, Japan also played a welcome role in stabilizing the Balkans, where NATO has led several peace-support operations since the mid-1990s. Japan’s contribution as a major donor nation has played an important part in the successful recovery of the Balkans region, as well as its reintegration into the European mainstream.
Practical cooperation focuses on various areas of common interest, including civil emergency planning, terrorism, non-proliferation and crisis management as well as participation in military activities. Since 2007, as is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and Japan have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities which provides the basis for practical cooperation.
Both sides benefit from a regular, informal exchange of views. The more structured contacts were initiated at the first NATO-Japan exchange in 1990, on the Belgian coast. Biannual meetings have taken place since then. NATO’s Secretary General visited Tokyo in April 2005 and again in December 2007. The then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also adressed the North Atlantic Council in January 2007.
Political dialogue is gradually being complemented by practical cooperation. Japan’s support for peace and security-orientated operations in Afghanistan are valued by the Allies. The Japanese government has also committed several million Yen (over 3,800,000 million US dollars) in support of basic human needs projects in various regions of Afghanistan. The selection of projects is facilitated by NATO, with the identification of projects through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Japan recently appointed some liaison officers to a number of PRTs to support this programme. The country donated three million euros to the NATO Trust Fund Ammunition Stockpile.
In the 1990s, Japan also played a welcome role in stabilizing the Balkans, where NATO has led several peace-support operations since the mid-1990s. Japan’s contribution as a major donor nation has played an important part in the successful recovery of the Balkans region, as well as its reintegration into the European mainstream.
Practical cooperation focuses on various areas of common interest, including civil emergency planning, terrorism, non-proliferation and crisis management as well as participation in military activities. Since 2007, as is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and Japan have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities which provides the basis for practical cooperation.
NATO – Republic of Korea cooperation
NATO and the Republic of Korea initiated contacts in 2005. At that time, the then Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon addressed the North Atlantic Council. Since then, relations evolved through regular high-level talks with the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
As is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and the Republic of Korea have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities. This provides the basis for practical cooperation with a primary focus on areas related to peace support operations.
The Republic of Korea has also contributed to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. The country led the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in the Parwan province, including medical and engineering support. The military forces were withdrawn but a presence has been maintained with the dispatch of several medical personnel.
As is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and the Republic of Korea have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities. This provides the basis for practical cooperation with a primary focus on areas related to peace support operations.
The Republic of Korea has also contributed to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. The country led the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in the Parwan province, including medical and engineering support. The military forces were withdrawn but a presence has been maintained with the dispatch of several medical personnel.
NATO-Pakistan relations
Since the Alliance’s relief-assistance operation in response to the devastating earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, NATO and Pakistan have significantly expanded political relations and practical cooperation. Political dialogue has been intensified, in particular with regard to the shared objective of bringing security and stability to Afghanistan.
In May 2007, during the first-ever visit by a NATO Secretary General to Pakistan, both sides agreed to hold regular high-level political exchanges, a further step towards broader cooperation.
How does cooperation work in practice?
While Afghanistan is a key focus of cooperation, NATO and Pakistan have developed regular exchanges at various levels, including visits by senior officials and opinion leaders, as well as participation by Pakistani military officials in NATO training programmes.
Cooperation on Afghanistan
Pakistan is a key neighbour of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s support for the efforts of NATO and the international community in Afghanistan remains crucial to the success of the Alliance’s mission there. At the same time instability, extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan pose a threat to Pakistan, as well as to the wider international community. As Pakistan’s Prime Minister put it during a visit to NATO on 30 January 2007, “Pakistan is committed to a strong, stable Afghanistan. The one country that will benefit the most, after Afghanistan itself, will be Pakistan.”
The growing NATO-Pakistan military-to-military cooperation in the context of Afghanistan is reflected in the work of the Tripartite Commission, a joint forum on military and security issues which brings together representatives from the NATO-led ISAF operation, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Tripartite Commission meets regularly at various levels and is used to exchange views, as well as to discuss security matters of mutual concern. Its four main areas of cooperation are intelligence sharing, border security, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and initiatives relating to information operations. A joint Afghan, ISAF and Pakistani intelligence centre that was opened in Kabul in January 2007 improved coordination within the Tripartite Commission.
NATO welcomes Pakistan’s constructive approach towards security and stability in the region. The issues of increasing drug cultivation in Afghanistan and dealing with refugees from that country have also been raised during political high-level talks.
How did relations with Pakistan evolve?
After Pakistan was struck by a devastating earthquake in October 2005, NATO launched an airlift of urgently-needed supplies and deployed engineers, medical units and specialist equipment to the country. A massive air-bridge was established, and assets of the NATO Response Force (NRF) were used in the effort.
Following the end of the mission in February 2006, political dialogue between NATO and Pakistan intensified. The relationship has gradually been augmented by practical cooperation, starting with the opening of NATO training courses to Pakistani officers.
In May 2007, during the first-ever visit by a NATO Secretary General to Pakistan, both sides agreed to hold regular high-level political exchanges, a further step towards broader cooperation.
How does cooperation work in practice?
While Afghanistan is a key focus of cooperation, NATO and Pakistan have developed regular exchanges at various levels, including visits by senior officials and opinion leaders, as well as participation by Pakistani military officials in NATO training programmes.
Cooperation on Afghanistan
Pakistan is a key neighbour of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s support for the efforts of NATO and the international community in Afghanistan remains crucial to the success of the Alliance’s mission there. At the same time instability, extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan pose a threat to Pakistan, as well as to the wider international community. As Pakistan’s Prime Minister put it during a visit to NATO on 30 January 2007, “Pakistan is committed to a strong, stable Afghanistan. The one country that will benefit the most, after Afghanistan itself, will be Pakistan.”
The growing NATO-Pakistan military-to-military cooperation in the context of Afghanistan is reflected in the work of the Tripartite Commission, a joint forum on military and security issues which brings together representatives from the NATO-led ISAF operation, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Tripartite Commission meets regularly at various levels and is used to exchange views, as well as to discuss security matters of mutual concern. Its four main areas of cooperation are intelligence sharing, border security, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and initiatives relating to information operations. A joint Afghan, ISAF and Pakistani intelligence centre that was opened in Kabul in January 2007 improved coordination within the Tripartite Commission.
NATO welcomes Pakistan’s constructive approach towards security and stability in the region. The issues of increasing drug cultivation in Afghanistan and dealing with refugees from that country have also been raised during political high-level talks.
How did relations with Pakistan evolve?
After Pakistan was struck by a devastating earthquake in October 2005, NATO launched an airlift of urgently-needed supplies and deployed engineers, medical units and specialist equipment to the country. A massive air-bridge was established, and assets of the NATO Response Force (NRF) were used in the effort.
Following the end of the mission in February 2006, political dialogue between NATO and Pakistan intensified. The relationship has gradually been augmented by practical cooperation, starting with the opening of NATO training courses to Pakistani officers.
NATO’s relations with Tajikistan
NATO’s relations with Tajikistan should be viewed through the Partnership for Peace framework which the country joined in 2002. NATO and Tajikistan actively cooperate in the fight and against terrorism and have developed practical cooperation in many other areas. The Individual Partnership Programme (IPP) lays out the programme of cooperation between NATO and Tajikistan.
Framework for cooperation
Dialogue takes place within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The NATO Secretary General’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Ambassador Robert F. Simmons, conducts high-level political dialogue with Tajik authorities through regular visits to the country. The NATO Liaison Officer in Central Asia also visits Dushanbe regularly and reviews cooperation with the government.
NATO and Tajikistan are developing practical cooperation in a number of areas through the country’s Individual Partnership Programme (IPP), which is jointly agreed for a two-year period. Key areas include security and peacekeeping cooperation, especially counter-terrorism cooperation and border security, crisis management and civil emergency planning.
Framework for cooperation
Dialogue takes place within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The NATO Secretary General’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Ambassador Robert F. Simmons, conducts high-level political dialogue with Tajik authorities through regular visits to the country. The NATO Liaison Officer in Central Asia also visits Dushanbe regularly and reviews cooperation with the government.
NATO and Tajikistan are developing practical cooperation in a number of areas through the country’s Individual Partnership Programme (IPP), which is jointly agreed for a two-year period. Key areas include security and peacekeeping cooperation, especially counter-terrorism cooperation and border security, crisis management and civil emergency planning.
The Iran-Iraq War
The Iran-Iraq War
Causes of the War (1980-1988)
The war started because of various factors such as religious and political differences, border disputes. With the leaders of Iraq from the Sunni branch, and the Iranians, the Shiite. The ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq was socialist and pro-Soviet, whereas the Iranian shah was anti-socialist (though certainly not democratic) and pro-Western. when Ayatollah Khomeini, who had spent part of his exile in Iraq, began encouraging his former colleagues to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq because his regime was anti-Islamic. This was part of Khomeini's broader strategy of spreading the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East. Saddam responded as he did to any challenge by a ruthless crackdown on Shiite fundamentalists and by sending aid to Arab separatists in Iran.
Between June and September 1980, 193 clashes occurred along the Iran-Iraq border. On September 17, Iraq abrogated the 1975 treaty. As Iraq mobilized Arab allies, Iran warned the Gulf States they would be overthrown if they supported Saddam. Tensions built, until a series of clashes occurred in early September along the border near Qasr e-Shirin. Each nation blamed the other for the fighting. Saddam threatened to seize territory he said Iran was supposed to transfer to Iraq under an earlier agreement, but Khomeini refused to give up the disputed lands.
Effects of the war
The war lasted for eight years, from September 1980 until August 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties. Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war while Iraq suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties.
A variety of unresolved humanitarian issues from the Iran-Iraq War include a failure to identify combatants killed in action and to exchange information on those killed or missing.
Causes of the War (1980-1988)
The war started because of various factors such as religious and political differences, border disputes. With the leaders of Iraq from the Sunni branch, and the Iranians, the Shiite. The ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq was socialist and pro-Soviet, whereas the Iranian shah was anti-socialist (though certainly not democratic) and pro-Western. when Ayatollah Khomeini, who had spent part of his exile in Iraq, began encouraging his former colleagues to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq because his regime was anti-Islamic. This was part of Khomeini's broader strategy of spreading the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East. Saddam responded as he did to any challenge by a ruthless crackdown on Shiite fundamentalists and by sending aid to Arab separatists in Iran.
Between June and September 1980, 193 clashes occurred along the Iran-Iraq border. On September 17, Iraq abrogated the 1975 treaty. As Iraq mobilized Arab allies, Iran warned the Gulf States they would be overthrown if they supported Saddam. Tensions built, until a series of clashes occurred in early September along the border near Qasr e-Shirin. Each nation blamed the other for the fighting. Saddam threatened to seize territory he said Iran was supposed to transfer to Iraq under an earlier agreement, but Khomeini refused to give up the disputed lands.
Effects of the war
The war lasted for eight years, from September 1980 until August 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties. Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war while Iraq suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties.
A variety of unresolved humanitarian issues from the Iran-Iraq War include a failure to identify combatants killed in action and to exchange information on those killed or missing.
The Korean War
The Korean War
Causes of the Korean War
The Korean War took place between 2 opposing regimes in 1950: North Korea and South Korea. It started because of the ongoing Cold War between the USA and the USSR. The USA entered the war was to undermine Communism. President Truman believed that the capitalism was in the danger of being superseded.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union occupied the Korean peninsula. The United Nations to resolve the problems of the divided Korea, decided to hold elections. The North Korean Army invaded the South on June 25, 1950. China entered war because they wanted to use North Korea as a buffer zone against possible US invasion. The US wanted to stop the spread the communism whereas the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism to increase its dominating power. The armistice ended the war in Korea, it seemed that neither side wanted to give in. However, the conflict was not yet ended, despite border clashes
Effects of the war
The Korean War created many frictions between US and the Soviet Union. The war showed US determination to stop the spread of Communism by USSR. Families were forced to break up due to the cruelty of the war. Furthermore, South Korea became a strategic location for US military. However, the Korean War never ended because of the inability to resolve the differences between South Korea and North Korea. Korean War also brought social damage to Korea, “especially in the North, where three years of bombing left hardly a modern building standing. The war also reinforced the boundaries between the North and the South. North Korea remained a communist nation and South Korea became a free republic. This social difference still brings conflict even today.
Causes of the Korean War
The Korean War took place between 2 opposing regimes in 1950: North Korea and South Korea. It started because of the ongoing Cold War between the USA and the USSR. The USA entered the war was to undermine Communism. President Truman believed that the capitalism was in the danger of being superseded.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union occupied the Korean peninsula. The United Nations to resolve the problems of the divided Korea, decided to hold elections. The North Korean Army invaded the South on June 25, 1950. China entered war because they wanted to use North Korea as a buffer zone against possible US invasion. The US wanted to stop the spread the communism whereas the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism to increase its dominating power. The armistice ended the war in Korea, it seemed that neither side wanted to give in. However, the conflict was not yet ended, despite border clashes
Effects of the war
The Korean War created many frictions between US and the Soviet Union. The war showed US determination to stop the spread of Communism by USSR. Families were forced to break up due to the cruelty of the war. Furthermore, South Korea became a strategic location for US military. However, the Korean War never ended because of the inability to resolve the differences between South Korea and North Korea. Korean War also brought social damage to Korea, “especially in the North, where three years of bombing left hardly a modern building standing. The war also reinforced the boundaries between the North and the South. North Korea remained a communist nation and South Korea became a free republic. This social difference still brings conflict even today.
The Philippine-American Weapons of War
Background information
The Philippine-American War was a war between the armed forces of the United States and the Philippines from 1899 through 1913.
This conflict is also known as the Philippine Insurrection. This name was historically the most commonly used in the U.S., but Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War, and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term.
Origins of the War
In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of 20 million United States dollars, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution.
The start of the War
Tensions between the Filipinos and the American soldiers on the islands existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by the feelings of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos by their former allies, the Americans. Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into American-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war. U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines.
Note: Recent evidence from the National Historial institute of the Philippines say that the Filipino soldier shot by the (said drunk) American soldiers is not in San Juan del Monte, but in present-day Sociego Street in Manila. The National Historical Institute put a marker there.
The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.
American Escalation
A large American military force (126,000 soldiers) was needed to occupy the country, and would be regularly engaged in war against Filipino forces for another decade. Also, Macabebe Filipinos were recruited by the United States Army.
By the end of February, the Americans had prevailed in the struggle for Manila, and the Philippine Army of Liberation was forced to retreat north. Hard-fought American victories followed at Quingua (April), Zapote Bridge (June), and Tirad Pass (December). With the June assassination of General Antonio Luna and the death of Brigadier General Gregorio del Pilar at Tirad Pass, the Filipinos' ability to fight a conventional war was rapidly diminishing. As of 1900, therefore, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. Subsequent American defeats at Pulang Lupa, Mabitac and Balangiga were not, however, sufficient to turn the tide of the struggle.
In March 1901, Aguinaldo was captured by the Macabebe Scouts, under the command of Brigadier General Frederick Funston in Palanan, Isabela. On July 4, 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war was over. The Americans gradually succeeded in taking control of urban and coastal areas by the end of 1903. In 1907, Macario Sacay, one of the last remaining Filipino generals fighting against the Americans, was captured and hanged.
While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence. In the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1916—the so-called Moro rebellion. The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.
Consequences
During the war, 4,234 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos. In 1908, Manuel Arellano Remondo, in a book entitled General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: "The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number."
U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones". Many of these civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to disproportionate reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "nigger killing business". During the U.S. occupation, English was declared the official language, although the languages of the Philippine people were Spanish, Visayan, Tagalog, Ilocano and other native languages. Six hundred American teachers were imported aboard the USS Thomas. Also, the Catholic Church was disestablished, and a considerable amount of church land was purchased and redistributed.
In 1914, Dean C. Worcester, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men."
In recognition of United States military service, during the Philippine-American War, the United States military created two service decorations which were known as the Philippine Campaign Medal and the Philippine Congressional Medal.
Summary
This article talks about different governing views from the Philippines and Americans. In 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. Tensions began to rise between the Philippines and Americans. One incident, the killing of a Pilipino soldier by an American soldier, eventually led to riot and the rise of War.
Evaluation
Such war is similar to the Maria-Hertogh riot which occurred in Singapore. An incident which happened on the road, resulted in tension between the two opposing parties, which resulted in a conflict. In this case, the problem lies in the hunger for power. The Americans wanted to conquer Philippine for their advantage, without considering the needs and wants of the Philippines. It is also disheartening to note that many innocent lives were lost.
The main reason why I think America wanted to do so was because she wanted to spread the idea of democracy to all regions, since she herself is a democratic country. By reigning over an Asian country like Philippine, she would then be able to slowly spread democracy to all parts of the world.
However, I think it is wrong for the Americans to reign over Philippine at the state when she is still struggling to gain independence. This gives a double blow to the Philippines.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
The Philippine-American War was a war between the armed forces of the United States and the Philippines from 1899 through 1913.
This conflict is also known as the Philippine Insurrection. This name was historically the most commonly used in the U.S., but Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War, and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term.
Origins of the War
In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of 20 million United States dollars, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution.
The start of the War
Tensions between the Filipinos and the American soldiers on the islands existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by the feelings of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos by their former allies, the Americans. Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into American-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war. U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines.
Note: Recent evidence from the National Historial institute of the Philippines say that the Filipino soldier shot by the (said drunk) American soldiers is not in San Juan del Monte, but in present-day Sociego Street in Manila. The National Historical Institute put a marker there.
The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.
American Escalation
A large American military force (126,000 soldiers) was needed to occupy the country, and would be regularly engaged in war against Filipino forces for another decade. Also, Macabebe Filipinos were recruited by the United States Army.
By the end of February, the Americans had prevailed in the struggle for Manila, and the Philippine Army of Liberation was forced to retreat north. Hard-fought American victories followed at Quingua (April), Zapote Bridge (June), and Tirad Pass (December). With the June assassination of General Antonio Luna and the death of Brigadier General Gregorio del Pilar at Tirad Pass, the Filipinos' ability to fight a conventional war was rapidly diminishing. As of 1900, therefore, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. Subsequent American defeats at Pulang Lupa, Mabitac and Balangiga were not, however, sufficient to turn the tide of the struggle.
In March 1901, Aguinaldo was captured by the Macabebe Scouts, under the command of Brigadier General Frederick Funston in Palanan, Isabela. On July 4, 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war was over. The Americans gradually succeeded in taking control of urban and coastal areas by the end of 1903. In 1907, Macario Sacay, one of the last remaining Filipino generals fighting against the Americans, was captured and hanged.
While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence. In the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1916—the so-called Moro rebellion. The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.
Consequences
During the war, 4,234 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos. In 1908, Manuel Arellano Remondo, in a book entitled General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: "The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number."
U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones". Many of these civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to disproportionate reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "nigger killing business". During the U.S. occupation, English was declared the official language, although the languages of the Philippine people were Spanish, Visayan, Tagalog, Ilocano and other native languages. Six hundred American teachers were imported aboard the USS Thomas. Also, the Catholic Church was disestablished, and a considerable amount of church land was purchased and redistributed.
In 1914, Dean C. Worcester, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men."
In recognition of United States military service, during the Philippine-American War, the United States military created two service decorations which were known as the Philippine Campaign Medal and the Philippine Congressional Medal.
Summary
This article talks about different governing views from the Philippines and Americans. In 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. Tensions began to rise between the Philippines and Americans. One incident, the killing of a Pilipino soldier by an American soldier, eventually led to riot and the rise of War.
Evaluation
Such war is similar to the Maria-Hertogh riot which occurred in Singapore. An incident which happened on the road, resulted in tension between the two opposing parties, which resulted in a conflict. In this case, the problem lies in the hunger for power. The Americans wanted to conquer Philippine for their advantage, without considering the needs and wants of the Philippines. It is also disheartening to note that many innocent lives were lost.
The main reason why I think America wanted to do so was because she wanted to spread the idea of democracy to all regions, since she herself is a democratic country. By reigning over an Asian country like Philippine, she would then be able to slowly spread democracy to all parts of the world.
However, I think it is wrong for the Americans to reign over Philippine at the state when she is still struggling to gain independence. This gives a double blow to the Philippines.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
UN peacekeeping effort in Afghanistan
UN peacekeeping effort in Afghanistan
The Assembly maintained its focus on Afghanistan throughout the 1980s, adopting a series of resolutions which called for an end to the conflict, withdrawal of foreign troops, UN assistance to find a political settlement and international help for refugees and others affected by the conflict.
Following the May 1987 agreement, the UN had begun strenuous efforts to coordinate humanitarian assistance. Afghanistan had long been designated by the UN as one of the world's least developed countries and war only made it more difficult to respond to the challenge of reconstruction and development.
In 1989, under the guidance of the Secretary-General's newly-appointed Coordinator for United Nations Humanitarian and Economic Assistance Programmes, a plan of action was developed jointly by United Nations agencies and programmes, including the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP).
In 1993, two peace accords were negotiated between President Rabbani and eight other Afghan leaders - in Islamabad on 7 March and in Jalalabad on 18 May. In these accords, the leaders agreed to form a government for 18 months, to set in motion an electoral process, to formulate a constitution, and to establish a defence council to set up a national army. In his annual report issued in September, the Secretary-General observed that although the accords were encouraging, they had neither resolved the problems of the government nor removed the threat of renewed fighting around Kabul.
In December 1993, at the request of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General established the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA) to canvass a broad spectrum of Afghan leaders and solicit their views on how the UN could best help with national reconciliation and reconstruction. Meanwhile, the movement of civilians mirrored the ebb and flow of battlefield realities, with many refugees returning to peaceful parts of the country. In 1992, more than 1.2 million returned home from Pakistan.
The Assembly maintained its focus on Afghanistan throughout the 1980s, adopting a series of resolutions which called for an end to the conflict, withdrawal of foreign troops, UN assistance to find a political settlement and international help for refugees and others affected by the conflict.
Following the May 1987 agreement, the UN had begun strenuous efforts to coordinate humanitarian assistance. Afghanistan had long been designated by the UN as one of the world's least developed countries and war only made it more difficult to respond to the challenge of reconstruction and development.
In 1989, under the guidance of the Secretary-General's newly-appointed Coordinator for United Nations Humanitarian and Economic Assistance Programmes, a plan of action was developed jointly by United Nations agencies and programmes, including the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP).
In 1993, two peace accords were negotiated between President Rabbani and eight other Afghan leaders - in Islamabad on 7 March and in Jalalabad on 18 May. In these accords, the leaders agreed to form a government for 18 months, to set in motion an electoral process, to formulate a constitution, and to establish a defence council to set up a national army. In his annual report issued in September, the Secretary-General observed that although the accords were encouraging, they had neither resolved the problems of the government nor removed the threat of renewed fighting around Kabul.
In December 1993, at the request of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General established the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan (UNSMA) to canvass a broad spectrum of Afghan leaders and solicit their views on how the UN could best help with national reconciliation and reconstruction. Meanwhile, the movement of civilians mirrored the ebb and flow of battlefield realities, with many refugees returning to peaceful parts of the country. In 1992, more than 1.2 million returned home from Pakistan.
UN peacekeeping in Iraq-Kuwait
UN peacekeeping in Iraq-Kuwait
On 2 August 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. On the same day, the Security Council adopted its resolution 660 (1990), condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq’s immediate withdrawal of its forces to the pre-occupied position. The Council instituted mandatory arms and economic sanctions against Iraq.
Between 2 August and 29 November 1990, the Council adopted 12 resolutions on various aspects of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, culminating in resolution 678 (1990). If Iraq have not implemented all the necessary resolutions, Member States cooperating with Kuwait's legitimate Government were authorized to use "all necessary means" to compel Iraq and restore international peace and security in the area.
On 3 April 1991, the Council adopted resolution 687 (1991), setting detailed conditions for a formal ceasefire to end the conflict and establishing the machinery for ensuring implementation of those conditions. Following Iraq’s acceptance of the resolution’s provisions, the ceasefire became a formal one.
Establishment of UNIKOM
By resolution 687 (1991) the Council established, a demilitarized zone (DMZ) along the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, to be monitored by a United Nations observer unit. The Secretary-General reported back on 5 April 1991, and on 9 April, by its resolution 689 (1991), the Security Council, established the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) with the strength of 300 military observers.
The Council gave UNIKOM a mandate to monitor the DMZ and the Khawr 'Abd Allah waterway between Iraq and Kuwait; to deter violations of the boundary; and to observe any hostile action mounted from the territory of one State against the other.
UNIKOM is deployed
UNIKOM’s aim was to patrol and observe the assigned zones in order to prevent conflicts between Iraq and Kuwait. Except for the oilfields and two towns - Umm Qasr, which became Iraq's only outlet to the sea, and Safwan - the zone is barren and almost uninhabited. UNIKOM enjoys full freedom of movement throughout the DMZ and observes the length and breadth of the zone.
On 2 August 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. On the same day, the Security Council adopted its resolution 660 (1990), condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq’s immediate withdrawal of its forces to the pre-occupied position. The Council instituted mandatory arms and economic sanctions against Iraq.
Between 2 August and 29 November 1990, the Council adopted 12 resolutions on various aspects of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, culminating in resolution 678 (1990). If Iraq have not implemented all the necessary resolutions, Member States cooperating with Kuwait's legitimate Government were authorized to use "all necessary means" to compel Iraq and restore international peace and security in the area.
On 3 April 1991, the Council adopted resolution 687 (1991), setting detailed conditions for a formal ceasefire to end the conflict and establishing the machinery for ensuring implementation of those conditions. Following Iraq’s acceptance of the resolution’s provisions, the ceasefire became a formal one.
Establishment of UNIKOM
By resolution 687 (1991) the Council established, a demilitarized zone (DMZ) along the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, to be monitored by a United Nations observer unit. The Secretary-General reported back on 5 April 1991, and on 9 April, by its resolution 689 (1991), the Security Council, established the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) with the strength of 300 military observers.
The Council gave UNIKOM a mandate to monitor the DMZ and the Khawr 'Abd Allah waterway between Iraq and Kuwait; to deter violations of the boundary; and to observe any hostile action mounted from the territory of one State against the other.
UNIKOM is deployed
UNIKOM’s aim was to patrol and observe the assigned zones in order to prevent conflicts between Iraq and Kuwait. Except for the oilfields and two towns - Umm Qasr, which became Iraq's only outlet to the sea, and Safwan - the zone is barren and almost uninhabited. UNIKOM enjoys full freedom of movement throughout the DMZ and observes the length and breadth of the zone.
UN peacekeeping in Timor Leste
UN peacekeeping in Timor Leste
Having declared its independence a mere four years ago, Timor Leste is still a fledgling nation emerging from the aftermath of a long, and often bloody, struggle for freedom. Though citizens have been ably assisted by various UN missions as they attempt to build the country, Timor Leste still has many challenges to overcome.
The combination of regional and UN assistance coupled with a commitment from local government officials to address the tension will help cease the fighting. In the long term, Timor Leste, working with regional governments, in particular Australia, will need to address the broad security challenges underlying the current instability.
The Peace Building Commission was formed to improve the coordination of relevant actors within and outside the UN and to extend the period of attention given by the international community to post-conflict recovery.
Having declared its independence a mere four years ago, Timor Leste is still a fledgling nation emerging from the aftermath of a long, and often bloody, struggle for freedom. Though citizens have been ably assisted by various UN missions as they attempt to build the country, Timor Leste still has many challenges to overcome.
The combination of regional and UN assistance coupled with a commitment from local government officials to address the tension will help cease the fighting. In the long term, Timor Leste, working with regional governments, in particular Australia, will need to address the broad security challenges underlying the current instability.
The Peace Building Commission was formed to improve the coordination of relevant actors within and outside the UN and to extend the period of attention given by the international community to post-conflict recovery.
The French-Thai War of Weapons
Background information
Negotiations with France shortly before World War II had shown that the French government was willing to make minor changes in the boundaries between Thailand and French Indochina. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign.
Metropolitan France's collapse obviously made the French hold on Indochina tenuous. The isolated colonial administration, cut off from outside help and supplies, was forced to allow the Japanese to set up military bases in Indochina. This seemingly subversivient behavior convinced the Phibun regime that the French would not seriously resist a confrontation with Thailand.
The Opposing Forces
French forces in Indochina consisted of an army of approximately fifty thousand men, of whom twelve thousand were French, organised into forty-one infantry battalions, two artillery regiments, and a battalion of engineers. The most obvious deficiency of the French army lay in its shortage of armour: it could only field twenty antiquated Renault FT-17s against the Thai army's 134.
The Armée de l'Air had in its inventory approximately a hundred aircraft, of which around sixty could be considered first line. These consisted of thirty Potez 25 TOEs, four Farman 221s, six Potez 542s, nine Morane M.S.406s, and eight Loire 130 flying boats.
The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. Consisting of some sixty thousand men, it was made up of four armies, the largest of which was the Burapha Army with its five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorised cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion and one armoured regiment. The artillery had available a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while sixty Carden-Loyd tankettes and thirty Vickers six-ton medium tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank arm.
The Royal Thai Navy - consisting of several vessels, including two coastal defence ships, twelve torpedo boats and four submarines - was inferior to the French naval forces, but the Royal Thai Air Force held both a quantitative and qualitative edge over l'Armee de l'Air. Among the 140 aircraft that composed the air force's first-line strength were twenty-four Mitsubishi Ki-30 light bombers, nine Mitsubishi Ki-21 heavy bombers, twenty-five Hawk 75Ns, six Martin B-10 bombers, and seventy Corsairs(Nappy adds Corsairs has been disputed here previously)
The War
While nationalistic demonstrations and anti-French rallies were held in Bangkok, border skirmishes erupted along the Mekong frontier. The superior Royal Thai Air Force conducted daytime bombing runs over Vientiane, Sisophon, and Battambang with impunity. The French retaliated with their own planes, but the damage caused was less than equal. The activities of the Thai air force, particularly in the field of dive-bombing was such that Admiral Jean Decoux, the governor of French Indochina, grudgingly remarked that the Thai planes seemed to have been flown by men with plenty of war experience.
In early January 1941, the Thai Burapha and Isaan Armies lauched their offensive on Laos and Cambodia. French resistance was instantaneous, but many units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos, but Cambodia proved a much harder nut to crack.
At dawn on January 16, 1941 the French launched a large counterattack on the Thai-held villages of Yang Dang Khum and Phum Preav, initiating the fiercest battle of the war. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistant intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area. The Thais were unable to pursue the retreating French, as their forward tanks were kept in check by the gunnery of French Foreign Legion artillerists.
As the situation on land was exacerbating for the French, Admiral Decoux ordered the available French naval forces into action in the Gulf of Thailand. In the early morning of January 17, the French navy caught a Thai naval detachment anchored off the island of Koh Chang. The subsequent Battle of Koh Chang proved a victory for the French and resulted in the sinking of two Thai torpedo boats, and a coastal defence ship.
On January 24, the final air battle took place when Thai bombers raided the French airfield at Angkor near Siem Reap. The last Thai mission commenced at 0710 hours on January 28, when the Martins of the 50th Bomber Squadron set out on a raid on Sisophon, escorted by three Hawk 75Ns of the 60th Fighter Squadron.
The Japanese mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 a peace treaty was signed in Tokyowith the French being coerced by the Japanese into relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.
Aftermath
The resolution of the conflict was received with wide acclaim among the Thai people and was looked upon as a personal triumph for the Major-General Phibun. For the first time, Thailand had been able to extract concessions from an European power, albeit a weakened one. For the French in Indochina, the conflict was a bitter reminder of their isolation following France's defeat by Germany. In the French view, an ambitious neighbour had taken advantage of a distant colony cut off from her weakened parent. Without hope of reinforcements, the French had little chance of offering a sustained resistance. The real gainers from the conflict were the Japanese, who expanded their influence in both Thailand and Indochina and won from Phibun a secret verbal promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma.
Western Cambodia and the two Lao enclaves were only returned to French sovereignty in October 1946, after France threatened to veto Siam's membership of the United Nations.
Casualties
The French army suffered a total of 321 casualties, of whom 15 were officers. The total number of men missing after January 28 was 178 (6 officers, 14 non-commissioned officers, and 158 enlisted men). The Thais had captured 222 men (17 North Africans, 80 Frenchmen, and 125 Indochinese
The Thai army suffered a total of 54 men killed in action and 307 wounded. 41 sailors and marines of the Thai navy were killed, and 67 wounded. At the Battle of Koh Chang, 36 men were killed, of whom 20 belonged to HTMS Thonburi, 14 to HTMS Songkhla, and 2 to HTMS Chonburi. The Thai air force lost 13 men. The number of Thai military personnel captured by the French amounted to just 21.
About 30% of the French aircraft were rendered unserviceable by the end of the war, some as a result of minor damage sustained in air raids that remained unrepaired. The Armée de l'Air admitted the loss of one Farman F221 and two Morane M.S.406s destroyed on the ground, but in reality its losses were greater
In the course of its first experience of combat, the Royal Thai Air Force claimed to have shot down five French aircraft and destroyed seventeen on the ground, for the loss of three of its own in the air and another five to ten destroyed in French air raids on Thai airfields
Summary
This article talks about the disagreements between the French and the Thais, over the claiming of territories. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign. The opposing views eventually led to a battle of war that lasted for a period of time. The war involved equipments such as tanks, Potez 25 TOEs, Farman 221s,Potez 542s, Morane M.S.406s, Loire 130 flying boats, tank arms and field guns.
Evaluation
The problem of claiming territory has existed since Man existed. Man has been competing for food and for shelter (territory). However in this case, I think the underlying problem here is the Greed of Mankind. If the French had not stolen the territory from Thailand, this problem would not have occurred. War would not have occurred. The many lives that were lost could have been saved. France already has its own land, territory to say, but because she wants to gain for more power, all of which because of Greed, it all ended up in such devastation.
However, the Thais are also at fault. Knowing that France’s defeat already had a big impact on France, by claiming their territory from France, it is only adding injury to insult for France. France faced problem after problem, that could have forced her into a battle. What I would do if I were the Thai government then would have been to wait for period of time for the French to calm herself down from the defeat. Only then, approach them for the territory. Even so, to achieve a win-win situation, the Thais could have asked for only half of the territory, while the other half was for the French. This could have prevented a war from taking place.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
Negotiations with France shortly before World War II had shown that the French government was willing to make minor changes in the boundaries between Thailand and French Indochina. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign.
Metropolitan France's collapse obviously made the French hold on Indochina tenuous. The isolated colonial administration, cut off from outside help and supplies, was forced to allow the Japanese to set up military bases in Indochina. This seemingly subversivient behavior convinced the Phibun regime that the French would not seriously resist a confrontation with Thailand.
The Opposing Forces
French forces in Indochina consisted of an army of approximately fifty thousand men, of whom twelve thousand were French, organised into forty-one infantry battalions, two artillery regiments, and a battalion of engineers. The most obvious deficiency of the French army lay in its shortage of armour: it could only field twenty antiquated Renault FT-17s against the Thai army's 134.
The Armée de l'Air had in its inventory approximately a hundred aircraft, of which around sixty could be considered first line. These consisted of thirty Potez 25 TOEs, four Farman 221s, six Potez 542s, nine Morane M.S.406s, and eight Loire 130 flying boats.
The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. Consisting of some sixty thousand men, it was made up of four armies, the largest of which was the Burapha Army with its five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorised cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion and one armoured regiment. The artillery had available a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while sixty Carden-Loyd tankettes and thirty Vickers six-ton medium tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank arm.
The Royal Thai Navy - consisting of several vessels, including two coastal defence ships, twelve torpedo boats and four submarines - was inferior to the French naval forces, but the Royal Thai Air Force held both a quantitative and qualitative edge over l'Armee de l'Air. Among the 140 aircraft that composed the air force's first-line strength were twenty-four Mitsubishi Ki-30 light bombers, nine Mitsubishi Ki-21 heavy bombers, twenty-five Hawk 75Ns, six Martin B-10 bombers, and seventy Corsairs(Nappy adds Corsairs has been disputed here previously)
The War
While nationalistic demonstrations and anti-French rallies were held in Bangkok, border skirmishes erupted along the Mekong frontier. The superior Royal Thai Air Force conducted daytime bombing runs over Vientiane, Sisophon, and Battambang with impunity. The French retaliated with their own planes, but the damage caused was less than equal. The activities of the Thai air force, particularly in the field of dive-bombing was such that Admiral Jean Decoux, the governor of French Indochina, grudgingly remarked that the Thai planes seemed to have been flown by men with plenty of war experience.
In early January 1941, the Thai Burapha and Isaan Armies lauched their offensive on Laos and Cambodia. French resistance was instantaneous, but many units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos, but Cambodia proved a much harder nut to crack.
At dawn on January 16, 1941 the French launched a large counterattack on the Thai-held villages of Yang Dang Khum and Phum Preav, initiating the fiercest battle of the war. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistant intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area. The Thais were unable to pursue the retreating French, as their forward tanks were kept in check by the gunnery of French Foreign Legion artillerists.
As the situation on land was exacerbating for the French, Admiral Decoux ordered the available French naval forces into action in the Gulf of Thailand. In the early morning of January 17, the French navy caught a Thai naval detachment anchored off the island of Koh Chang. The subsequent Battle of Koh Chang proved a victory for the French and resulted in the sinking of two Thai torpedo boats, and a coastal defence ship.
On January 24, the final air battle took place when Thai bombers raided the French airfield at Angkor near Siem Reap. The last Thai mission commenced at 0710 hours on January 28, when the Martins of the 50th Bomber Squadron set out on a raid on Sisophon, escorted by three Hawk 75Ns of the 60th Fighter Squadron.
The Japanese mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 a peace treaty was signed in Tokyowith the French being coerced by the Japanese into relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.
Aftermath
The resolution of the conflict was received with wide acclaim among the Thai people and was looked upon as a personal triumph for the Major-General Phibun. For the first time, Thailand had been able to extract concessions from an European power, albeit a weakened one. For the French in Indochina, the conflict was a bitter reminder of their isolation following France's defeat by Germany. In the French view, an ambitious neighbour had taken advantage of a distant colony cut off from her weakened parent. Without hope of reinforcements, the French had little chance of offering a sustained resistance. The real gainers from the conflict were the Japanese, who expanded their influence in both Thailand and Indochina and won from Phibun a secret verbal promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma.
Western Cambodia and the two Lao enclaves were only returned to French sovereignty in October 1946, after France threatened to veto Siam's membership of the United Nations.
Casualties
The French army suffered a total of 321 casualties, of whom 15 were officers. The total number of men missing after January 28 was 178 (6 officers, 14 non-commissioned officers, and 158 enlisted men). The Thais had captured 222 men (17 North Africans, 80 Frenchmen, and 125 Indochinese
The Thai army suffered a total of 54 men killed in action and 307 wounded. 41 sailors and marines of the Thai navy were killed, and 67 wounded. At the Battle of Koh Chang, 36 men were killed, of whom 20 belonged to HTMS Thonburi, 14 to HTMS Songkhla, and 2 to HTMS Chonburi. The Thai air force lost 13 men. The number of Thai military personnel captured by the French amounted to just 21.
About 30% of the French aircraft were rendered unserviceable by the end of the war, some as a result of minor damage sustained in air raids that remained unrepaired. The Armée de l'Air admitted the loss of one Farman F221 and two Morane M.S.406s destroyed on the ground, but in reality its losses were greater
In the course of its first experience of combat, the Royal Thai Air Force claimed to have shot down five French aircraft and destroyed seventeen on the ground, for the loss of three of its own in the air and another five to ten destroyed in French air raids on Thai airfields
Summary
This article talks about the disagreements between the French and the Thais, over the claiming of territories. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign. The opposing views eventually led to a battle of war that lasted for a period of time. The war involved equipments such as tanks, Potez 25 TOEs, Farman 221s,Potez 542s, Morane M.S.406s, Loire 130 flying boats, tank arms and field guns.
Evaluation
The problem of claiming territory has existed since Man existed. Man has been competing for food and for shelter (territory). However in this case, I think the underlying problem here is the Greed of Mankind. If the French had not stolen the territory from Thailand, this problem would not have occurred. War would not have occurred. The many lives that were lost could have been saved. France already has its own land, territory to say, but because she wants to gain for more power, all of which because of Greed, it all ended up in such devastation.
However, the Thais are also at fault. Knowing that France’s defeat already had a big impact on France, by claiming their territory from France, it is only adding injury to insult for France. France faced problem after problem, that could have forced her into a battle. What I would do if I were the Thai government then would have been to wait for period of time for the French to calm herself down from the defeat. Only then, approach them for the territory. Even so, to achieve a win-win situation, the Thais could have asked for only half of the territory, while the other half was for the French. This could have prevented a war from taking place.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)