You Can’t “Uninvite” Us, We Weren’t Coming

The Philadelphia Eagles, like any professional sports team that wins a World Championship, were invited to the White House to celebrate their accomplishment. As a team with vocal players like Malcolm Jenkins and Chris Long, it came as no surprise that many of them chose not to attend the event, scheduled for today. When President Trump was made aware of the low team attendance that was expected, despite the fact that several Eagles publicly stating that they wouldn’t attend shortly after winning the Super Bowl, he “rescinded” his invitation citing the Eagles’ dislike of the NFL’s new national anthem policy.

Related: Anthem Penalties: We Are Who We Thought They Were

In the White House statement, Trump again associated standing for the national anthem with patriotism and respect for the military. It is unclear whether he is just too narrow-minded to understand the full depth of the issue, or if he just doesn’t care and sees this matter as a win for his base. Either way, he conveniently ignores why the players were kneeling during the national anthem last season, which was in protest to social injustice and police brutality (not to mention that the Eagles’ players did stand for the anthem every game last season). While Trump likes to argue that these men do not care about their country, a strong argument could be made that they actually care more about their country than he does because they recognize injustice and are actively working to address it and make positive changes.

Trump has made it clear that he does not have the ability to understand things past their face value. The Eagles decision not to attend, prior to being “uninvited,” is a sign that they’re doing something right as a group, which has proven to be active in combating social injustice in America. I hope to see them continue to speak up and support causes they believe in, regardless of the bullying tactics that Trump uses to discourage positive discourse.

Subscribe for free to keep up with the debate. 

Should We Feel Sorry For a Racist?

After getting punched in the face several times by a New Jersey Wildwood City Police Officer on Memorial Day Weekend, 20-year old Emily Weinman screamed, “I’m not one of these motherfu#&in ni$$a’s out here!”

55 seconds of disbelief as she’s mishandled by the police followed by her racist remark immediately makes you question how sorry you initially felt for her.

Link: Video of Emily Weinman being arrested 

Police brutality and explicit racism of those being brutalized is not something we hear about often. But the incident this past weekend was caught on video and it’s hard to ignore what Emily yells in anger right before the video ends.

Why would she think it’s appropriate to yell such a thing? If pushed, I’m sure she’ll release an apology suggesting she’s not a racist and that it was said in the heat of the moment. And like all similar apologies, it’ll blow over. It won’t be held against her for jobs or future opportunities because “she’s young and she really didn’t mean it.” Same script different person.

But if a 20-year non-Black woman in this country is conditioned to believe that only people of color are treated unjustly or brutalized by the police, and that the color of her skin grants her a pass unlike her fellow American’s who are of a different race, culture, or creed, then one things for sure – this country isn’t progressing, if anything it’s regressing.

Underage drinking was her supposed crime. According to Wildwood Mayor Ernie Troiano, Jr., “She refused to comply… Unfortunately, this is what happened.” They’ve launched an internal affairs investigation; but if after reviewing the video the city’s mayor can make such a statement, that should tell us all we need to know about who they believe is at fault. When you have back up, there’s gotta be a better / easier way to arrest someone… on the beach… who poses no physical threat.

Police brutality is real, and similar to mass incarceration, every now and then it snatches an unintended target. This time it was Emily Weinman.

If it’s possible to focus solely on the arrest and ignore her racist comment, which should be a lot to ask of any decent person, the police officer definitely took it too far and hopefully, justice will be served. She definitely didn’t deserve to be treated like this. And maybe, just maybe, her experience will help her realize that even people of color, or as she referred to them, these motherfu#&in ni$$a’s, don’t deserve to be treated like this either.

Let us know what you think. The intersectionality of police brutality and race is quite unusual in this incident.

Subscribe for free for similar content. 

Anthem Penalties? They Are Who We Thought They Were

Don’t let em off the hook. 

We’ve all seen it and laughed each time we watched it. I’m referring to the classic line, The Bears are what we thought they were, and we let them off the hook!, press conference rant by the late great NFL head coach Dennis Green. To recap, Coach Green was referencing his Arizona Cardinals blowing a 4th quarter lead vs the top team in their conference, and eventual Super Bowl-bound Chicago Bears. Chicago was down 20 and made a great comeback to win the game, one of the greatest in the regular season.

Related: [2017 In Review] Kaepernick Vs. The NFL… The LCR Responds…

Keeping with the NFL theme, this week the 32 NFL owners and commissioner Rodger Goodell have concluded players must stand for the playing of the national anthem or face punishment.

The particulars of how the rule should be implemented and the corresponding penalties haven’t been mapped out just yet. And though owners and commissioner haven’t consulted the NFLPA (NFL Players Association) with this ruling, they did state if players did not want to stand they could wait in the locker room. See, that was nice of them.

And this is where the Dennis Green reference comes into play. The NFL owners are who we thought they were. Yeah yeah I know some owners have come out and stated they would pay the fines of their players. Some owners have expressed they believe in the players’ right to protest, and others are somewhere in between, reluctant to order players to stand but concerned about the bottom line… money.

These expressions come from a collective of owners whose average age is 70, that’s the average… 70. They make Congress look like Freshman orientation. They’re ALL billionaires and ALL except Shahid Khan are White. In other words, they literally have nothing in common with their employees, the players. And they don’t care to have anything in common. As Dennis Green said, “we let them off the hook” and the NFLPA is on the verge of doing so if they let the owners get away with enacting such a draconian rule without their consent and input.

The NFLPA must not allow the narrative to be spun around as if the players have presented a problem with kneeling during the anthem to protest injustices against Black people in America. They must not allow the virtually lost point of the protests, that they have NOTHING to do with the American flag or anthem directly. It has everything to do what the protests were about. If the protests were for cancer, the storyline would have lasted a week and nothing else would have been said about it.

The owners are exactly who we think they are. They’re a bunch of super rich old men who have allowed the national anthem protests to empower and transform the role and importance of players, specifically Black players. They want that power back, not to mention they completely disagree with why the protests started in the first place. The NFLPA once had a lead with the protests and now the owners are staging a comeback. Don’t allow the owners to come back and snatch victory away in the fourth quarter. The stakes are too high.

Subscribe for free for similar content. 

NFL Owners Cave to Trump… “Show Respect”

You can tell me where to line up. How to defend a certain play. Even what I should eat before a game. All that falls under what we call “coaching,” and the NFL probably does more of it than any other professional league. But when the NFL, or any organization in America for that matter, starts telling their employees what and who they should respect; as Americans, we should all question them and the current state of our country that makes anyone think it’s acceptable to render such a “rule.” This is America, and in America, it’s our right to stand… or not.

In 2018, the fact that our government, our institutions, or an employer, regardless of how powerful they might be, can make such demands is troubling. Times change, and democratic nations must make sure that change is always progressive and inclusive.

The NFL owners are a wealthy-predominantly-white-older-group of men. To say they lack diversity is an understatement. More than 70% of their players are Black, but it’s clear they didn’t consider their opinions, or consult their Union, prior to voting on this issue.

There’s only one reason for such a ruling. And believe it or not, it started at a Trump rally in rural Alabama. Yup, Donald Trump has done it again. The seeds he sowed months ago by rallying his base over this non-political issue and calling NFL players sons of bitches, has now blossomed and come to fruition. Despite many NFL owners being caught on tape at recent meetings criticizing Trump for his comments regarding their league and players, they’ve essentially caved to his far-right isolationist demand.

“All team and league personnel on the field shall stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem.”

…That’s the language released from the league office this morning.

Show respect for the flag and anthem. Because in America, we now threaten your employment and income if you choose to exercise your constitutional right.

But… there’s an exception… Players will not be required to be on the field during the anthem. So say 45 of the 53 active players decide to stay in the locker room week after week during the anthem, and Trump gets back on his bullhorn to criticize them and the owners for allowing them to do so via their new rule, should we expect the owners to be strong and not cave in this time? Probably not.

Gotta love strong-arm patriotism that ignores constitutional rights.

[Expect LCR Contributors to weigh in.] 

Don’t Question My Love, I Didn’t Have a Choice

The interracial dating debate is alive and well. Can you be pro-Black and in an interracial relationship? I’ve seen so many pieces on the matter and to be honest, they all make me cringe a little. Some less than others, but there isn’t one post I’ve seen that I could get 100% on board with.

Related: Can Someone Be Pro-Black and Date Someone Who is Not Black? 

You see, I’m a Black woman who is married to a European White guy (I distinguish the difference because he makes it a point to do so, but that’s an article for another day). I was raised by a strong Black mother and father who supplied me with the same “you have to be twice as good as your White counterpart to be considered equal” speech that just about all Pro-Black parents give their kids. For college, I only considered going to an HBCU because after seeing my sister’s experience at Spelman, I knew I needed something similar to really understand who I am as a Black woman in America. I say all of that to say that I’ve been conscious my whole life.

Eventually, I met my husband. We were co-workers and friends. I always thought he was such a cool guy and we had so much in common. But never once did I consider the possibility of dating him simply because he wasn’t wrapped in the same brown skin that I have. After two years of knowing each other and him occasionally asking me out and getting turned down, I finally agreed to a date. I figured I’d go watch this movie with him to prove that there could be nothing beyond friendship between us. Now, it’s 10 years later and we’ve been happily married almost 5 years.

After that date, there really wasn’t a choice for me. I knew then that I loved him. I mean, we had already grown a really strong friendship to this point. Getting the opportunity to spend quality time with him alone really showed me that I was cheating myself out of an opportunity. And for what? Because this amazingly caring, funny, handsome, charming man wasn’t born a Black man?

So back to my issue with the think pieces on interracial dating. Of course, there are people who choose to date outside of their race because that’s just their preference. Or maybe they just don’t want to limit themselves to one race and prefer to keep their options open. But for most of us, just like same race couples, we didn’t have a choice about who we fell in love with and that’s what’s missing from so many of these articles I’ve seen. I’m glad so many people were able to contextualize the conversation so well; but honestly, it’s not that deep. The heart wants what the heart wants. When you meet someone and start falling in love with them, race doesn’t matter. I simply followed my heart to happiness and I highly recommend that everyone do the same!

Subscribe for free and keep up with the debate.

Iran: What Comes Next?

On May 8, President Donald Trump took perhaps the most consequential foreign policy action of his presidency thus far and announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Despite the fact that Iran has verifiably been compliant with the terms of the agreement, President Trump has repeatedly characterized it as a “bad deal” and the promise to withdraw the United States from it was a central pillar of his campaign. Although it fulfills the President’s campaign promise, American withdrawal from the JCPOA is comprising international security, regional stability, and the United States’ role in the international arena.  

European allies including France and Germany had spent the past several months working to convince the administration to stay a part of the deal and have made their displeasure with this development clear, indicating that they will do what they can to save the deal without the United States. This is no small task and many European diplomats have admitted that it would be exceedingly difficult. The EU does have the option of imposing retaliatory sanctions to shield European businesses or having the European Central Bank invest directly in Iran, although given the strength and pervasiveness of the American financial system it is unlikely that this would be enough to maintain the deal’s benefits for Iran. Regardless a signal has been sent to our European partners that they cannot rely on the United States to display the international leadership they once did.

If and when it becomes clear that Iran will not achieve the economic benefits that the deal promised it is highly probable that they will resume their nuclear program. Hardliners within Iran will take this opportunity to make the case that diplomacy is futile and future agreements will become increasingly difficult. At the same time, the country’s more moderate President, Hassan Rouhani, will likely see his influence weakened. As the Iranian economy, which has already been suffering from unrelated US sanctions, continues to get worse, it is average Iranian citizens who will bear the brunt of the sanctions. This could lead to a degree of social unrest, although any protests are likely to get cracked down upon early and hard.

If Iran does reinstate its nuclear program it will be much harder to once again put together the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table to begin with. Sanctions against the Iranian regime were effective when the international community worked as a united front. Unilateral US sanctions are likely to have a substantially smaller impact on the regime’s actions. Many of the most effective US sanctions, known as “secondary sanctions” or sanctions, levied not on the Iranian regime directly but on parties doing business with Iran. The reimposition of these sanctions is likely to have the greatest impact as they will act as a significant deterrent to European businesses who were quick to begin doing business in the country after the sanctions were lifted. It will also impact American firms, such as Boeing which had a large deal in place to supply airplane parts to Iran’s civil airline.  

What will most likely happen?

The US sanctions will be enough to prevent Iran from getting the benefits of the nuclear deal, thereby causing the deal to fall apart, but not enough to curb its activities in the region.

Refusing to stick to the accords doesn’t just increase the likelihood that Iran will end up with a nuclear weapon in the near term, it also sets a bad precedent and undermines faith in the United States with regards to future international negotiations. This is especially pertinent considering the upcoming summit with North Korea. The deal that is reportedly being offered to Kim Jong-Un, economic relief in exchange for the cessation of the country’s nuclear program, is similar to the one that the Trump administration is now reneging on with Iran. If the US has proven itself unable to stick to a deal once agreed upon with Iran, why would the North Koreans expect to be treated any differently?

Regardless of what one thinks of the administration’s withdrawal from the deal, it happened. The question now is what’s next?

At the end of his speech announcing the American withdrawal, President Trump expressed a willingness to renegotiate the deal. There is however little indication of what the administration would hope to gain by doing so. In fact, the administration seems to have no clear strategy on the issue. The vague normative statements, half-truths, and political chest-thumping that have characterized the President’s comments on the issue are not enough. If regional and international security is to be maintained, it is essential that the administration has a clear strategy for how to handle Iran in both the near and long-term. 

You Have Failed Your Goddesses

A close friend of mine emailed me an article this morning with a simple statement in the subject line, “This is crazy.” It was about the third rape incident in a week involving another teenage girl who was sexually assaulted and burned alive.

She was molested in her own home by a man who then doused her in petrol and set her on fire when she threatened to tell her family about the incident. What makes this terrible story even worse and fills me with rage and disgust is that one of the perpetrators who was arrested is her cousin.

Each woman is a Goddess in her own right. Songs are dedicated to them, stories and poems of bravery, courage, and love are written about them, and wars have been fought over them.

Women are the very foundation of our civilization; yet, for some unknown reason, we do not or perhaps will not acknowledge their worth or humanity.

No country in this world shows its lack of respect and disvalue for women more than India. There are 28 Goddesses in Hinduism, 28 powerful female entities that incorporate every known emotion and ability – from love and guidance to vengeance and wrath.

Millions of people in India as well as around the world worship them and go to unbelievable lengths to show their devotion and reverence, but for some inexplicable reason that admiration and respect does not transfer to the women that live within the Indian population.

Where and When did India fail its women? Well for starters, there is a strong possibility the female fetus will be aborted because of the stigma that women are a burden to the family, and that they cannot earn or inherit their family’s property and wealth like a male heir can. Moreover, baby girls are killed after birth, leading to a ridiculously skewed sex ratio. Those who survive this horrible rite of passage then face discrimination, prejudice, violence, and in extreme cases face neglect all their lives, regardless of being single or married.

TrustLaw, a news platform run by Thomson Reuters, has ranked India as the worst G20 nation for women to live. Their ranking is astounding, considering the fact that the leader of the ruling party, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, at least three chief ministers, and many sports, entertainment, and business icons in India are women.

In 2016, there were roughly 40,000 reported cases of rape in India. The majority of victims range between 16-30, and disturbingly enough 94% of the victims knew their offenders. Neighbors account for a third of the offenses, while parents and other relatives range of that scale as well. Today, India’s Capital Territory, Delhi, alone accounts for nearly 17% of the total number of rape cases in the country.

What makes this problem even more infuriating is that it is not just the act of rape, but kidnappings, abductions, killings, mutilations, acid attacks, and fire attacks as well. This type of violence can be related to disputes over dowry payments, human trafficking, rejection, and pure jealousy.

Research conducted by economists Siwan Anderson and Debraj Ray estimates that in any given year, nearly two million women go missing. Additionally, the economists learned that roughly 12% of the women disappear at birth, 25% die in childhood, 18% at reproductive ages, and 45% go missing at older ages.

Analysts claim that because the country is deeply entrenched in patriarchy and widespread misogyny, the attitude towards women is a reflection of that. Personally, I find that to be a cop-out and a pathetic excuse to allow these horrible acts of cruelty and violence to continue.

When a person commits a crime and the punishment is a slap on the wrist, how can we expect anything to change? How can we expect the men of India to do better? How can we expect them to appreciate women when the government itself is so incompetent and ridiculously slow to provide proper protection for women and harsher punishments for those who believe it is in their right to violate, rape, murder, burn, and molest at will?

This may sound like a rant, and you’re right, it is. I am one voice in a sea of millions of other voices lost on the ears of those who can do something but choose to do nothing. When will things in India change? When the nation as a whole realize that its most valuable treasure is not its history, or its temples, forts, tech hubs, or palaces; but its women.

How India decides to treat its women will determine India’s image to the rest of the world, and if they are worth the blessings and gifts their ancient Gods and GODDESSES bestow upon them.

Subscribe for free and read more international pieces from Left Center Right by clicking here: LCR

The Rohingya Massacre: A Crisis the West Rather Not Cover

The United Nations considers the Rohingya people the “most persecuted minority group in the world.” It’s time we start paying attention. 

[Silent] Genocide: The Rohingya Massacre… We originally published this article on 11 September 2017. The crisis has unfortunately worsened since then. If you haven’t heard about the Rohingya Massacre, likely due to the West and major news orgs choosing not to cover it, please read our short piece below to catch up on a story everyone should know about. 

I was scrolling through my newsfeed last week and noticed some of my friend’s updates and funny videos from Labor-Day weekend. While scrolling, I also saw that one of my friends had posted a link from The Economist talking about the Rohingya genocide that is currently taking place in Burma (Myanmar). In a short blurb above the article, she wrote in capital letters, “WHY ISN’T ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS!”

I’ve known about this conflict prior to seeing her post, but she made a good point – why isn’t this being discussed on major news networks? I have read time and time again about the intensity and cruelty that is taking place at this moment across the world in Burma, and it sickens me to know that just this year alone 1,000 Rohingya have been killed in a new crackdown by the Myanmar state. 

Here is a breakdown of what started this conflict and why this is happening…

The Rohingya are Muslims. They are indigenous to Burma’s Rakhine province in the North-West Region that borders the South Asian country, Bangladesh. There are approximately 2 million Rohingya, of which, 1 million are currently living in Burma today.

Despite having historic ties to the land of Burma that have lasted for centuries, the Rohingya people were rendered stateless in 1982 by a highly controversial citizenship law that deliberately excluded them as one of Burma’s natural, and thereby legitimate, ethnicities. Because of this, the Rohingya people have been falsely and cruelly classified as foreigners in their own homeland.

If this was not difficult enough the Citizenship Law of 1982 has since become the staging grounds for the rising tide of Islamophobia in Burma. Biased government led initiatives are being fueled by a strategically planted hatred for Muslims and are designed to alienate the native Rohingya from Burmese Buddhist life.

One of the main initiatives involves the denial of the title “Rohingya” from public discourse. Instead, the incorrect term “Benjali” is being pushed on the Rohingya people to make them seem like foreigners and Muslims to the Burmese people. 

Because of this, the Rohingya people have been pushed to the literal fringes of Burmese society where they are extremely vulnerable, and where human rights abuses are mounting up and becoming quite difficult to document.

Since the violence has started the Rohingya people have been forced to flee to neighboring states, such as Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia. They’ve unfortunately been met with further hostility. Those governments have rejected them and relegated them to a life of complete neglect in refugee camps, which inevitably increases the very real threat of human trafficking. 

In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” These words should ring loud and true for anyone who considers themselves a citizen of the world, and they cannot be ignored just because what you see makes you uncomfortable or helpless. We all belong to this planet and when anyone tries to force one person or a group of us to disappear via genocide, we ALL need to come together and say it loud and clear – that it is NOT OK, and that IT WILL NOT BE IGNORED. I too at times feel that my voice is lost in the multitude of noise that is generated in this busy world we live in; however, that will not stop me from yelling, writing, and talking about issues like the Rohingya genocide because they deserve our attention. The people of Rohingya need and deserve justice, and they’ll never get it if the people who know about the issue refuse to discuss it and bring it to other peoples attention. 

The United Nations considers the Rohingya people the “most persecuted minority group in the world.” It’s time we start paying attention. 

Last year we shared a similar story about 8,000 Muslims who were killed in a designated U.N. “safe haven.” Read about it here: Unknown Genocide

Subscribe for free to stay up to date on the Rohingya Crisis and other international atrocities that aren’t getting the coverage they deserve.

Korean Reunification Will Never Work, and Here’s Why

In response to Trump Succeeds Where Obama Did Not

I have great hope for the upcoming talks with North Korea, and I agree that the tone and setting are different than they’ve ever been before.  That said, while there is a possibility of everyone getting what they want (and thus currently a sense of great optimism in the possibility by all sides, and a thrust of welcoming outreach as each party sets up for the talks), there remain quite a few conflicting, zero-sum core objectives that are likely to color the actual talks and their ultimate impact.

First among these is reunification itself.  While reunification is a North and South objective, “reunification” looks very different in the minds of the two heads of state.  These two nations remain at war because each of their governments is unwilling to not be the surviving entity.  Further, reunification is China’s worst outcome.  China is at times uncomfortable with the DPRK and sees a nuclear North as problematic, but ultimately, their needs are best met by having a divided Korea and a buffer state between China and US-aligned South Korea.  North Korea is unlikely to re-align with the West regardless of North/South relations, and is unlikely to open itself up much at all.

Northern power is based on their own narrative and control of information.  Strict adherence to this policy has given the Kim dynasty firm control over a starving population.  Family reunification on any meaningful scale is likely to provide an infection of truth that might well topple their hold on the hearts and minds of the North Korean people.  As such, hopes of reunification (even among families) seems hard to imagine.

Additionally, we have come to this place precisely because the DPRK is on the brink of developing a nuclear missile that can hit the US mainland.  This attention and recognition was precisely the DPRK’s objective in building this weapon, and when the talks are over and the DPRK improves its situation from desperately starving to abject poverty through foreign aid, they are likely to realize once again that their best alternative is to tear up any nuclear concessions and go back to threatening the world with nuclear weapons.

What worries me is the only end to this loop is a sub-optimal outcome nearly everyone in the region.  Imagine a world where the DPRK after successful agreements violates those concessions and returns to weapon production.  The US strikes a deal with China that the US will destroy the weapons sites with force, but will allow China (not South Korea) to enter.  South Korea bears the brunt of a conventional artillery barrage, but repels a DPRK advance – but at great loss of life.  North Korea becomes either part of China proper or a puppet vassal state, likely ending the prospect of Korean reunification for at least the next 100 years.  In order to gain China’s acquiescence, the US would likely have to agree to cede our heavy presence in the Pacific – greatly reducing the US footprint on land and water, and likely leaving South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Japan to deal with China as the unequivocal regional hegemon.

And Trump may well like that deal.  It protects the US from a nuclear threat (America first), moves the US back from our global posture (which he has said from the start is among his objectives), and in exchange for the US conceding regional hegemony to China (which he and many others see as merely a realistic eventuality), he is likely to get strong trade concessions that will benefit US industry in the short term.  In the thousand year sense, China also likes that deal – with the US gone from the region, they return to their rightful place atop the Asian region- achieved through negotiations, money and Korean (not Chinese) blood.

So while all of that is good for the US and China, it may be a bit early to start handing out Nobel Prizes.  The Trump/Xi version of Realpolitik is more likely to look like it did in the Franco-Prussian era- like two great powers carving out their spheres of influence.  Perhaps I’m wrong.  But we will see…

Trump Succeeds Where Obama Did Not?

The North Korean state media hailed a meeting between its leader and South Korea’s president as a “new milestone.” Momentous decisions took place at this meeting, one of them is to end the Korean War formally, and another being to make the Korean peninsula nuclear-free. 

South Korean’s news agency Yonhap reported on Saturday that both Pyongyang and Seoul “affirm the common goal of realizing a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through complete denuclearization.”

On the opposite side of the border, North Korea’s Central News Agency (KCNA) also said that the summit would mark the way for “a new era of peace and prosperity.”

To cement these substantial declarations, the leaders of the two Koreas signed a joint statement after a historic summit that saw Kim Jong-un become the first North Korean leader to step into South Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

A day of choreographed talks and symbolic gestures gave way to some unscripted spontaneity when Kim asked his South Korean counterpart to reciprocate by briefly stepping into North Korea.

The signing of the declaration came after two rounds of discussions between the leaders, as well as a symbolic tree-planting ceremony to bring about peace and prosperity on the split peninsula.

What does this all mean?

North Korea and South Korea have had talks before, have made pledges before and have also committed to peace previously, and none of it lasted. What makes this time different?

Here is a brief look at the sanctions (see fig. 1) and the reasons behind them. This new agreement would help Kim Jong-un remove some if not most of these sanctions and benefit from if the deal between South Korea, United States, and China goes through. 

Sanctions Against North Korea 

Year Action Sanction
Dec – 1985 DPRK ratifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Jan – 2003 DPRK withdraws from NPT
Oct – 2006 UN Security Council (UNSC) passes resolution 1718 condemning the country’s first nuclear test and imposing sanctions on DPRK, including the supply of heavy weaponry, missile technology, material, and select luxury goods.
June – 2008 DPRK declares its nuclear programs to China and commits to shutting down parts of its Yongbyon nuclear facilities
June – 2009 UNSC adopts Resolution 1874, which strengthens against DPRK after it conducted its second nuclear explosion test.
Dec – 2011 North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dies after seventeen years in power. His son Kim Jong-un takes over
Jan – 2013 UNSC passes Resolution 2087 condemning DPRK 2012 satellite launch and proliferation activities.
Mar – 2013 UNSC passes Resolution 2094 imposing harsher sanctions in response to DPRK’s third nuclear test in a month prior
March – 2016 UNSC adopts Resolution 2270 condemning DPRK’s fourth nuclear test and its 2015 submarine-launched missile test. Sanctions are enhanced, including banning states from supplying aviation fuel to DPRK.
Nov – 2016 UNSC passes Resolution 2321 expanding sanctions after DPRK’s fifth nuclear test, including a ban on mineral exports such as copper and nickel, and the selling of statues and helicopters.
Aug – 2017 UNSC adopts Resolution 2371 boosting sanctions after DPRK’s two intercontinental ballistic missile tests in July, including a ban on coal and iron exports.
Sept – 2017 UNSC unanimously passes Resolution 2375 to ratchet up sanctions following DPRK’s sixth and largest nuclear test.
Dec – 2017 UNSC passes Resolution 2397 imposing new restrictions on oil imports, as well as metal, agricultural, and labor exports.

(Figure 1. Chronology of International action against the rogue state Eleanor A. (2018). What to know about the sanctions on North Korea. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-sanctions-north-korea.)

These sanctions have been crushing to the economic stability and prosperity of North Korea. So the reason to come to the table now and push to make these promises stick this time is actually quite simple. Kim Jong-un wants to improve North Korea, and mutually the leaders of both Korea’s realize that there is more strength in unity than there is to remain split apart and to have outside influences use the “divide and conquer strategy” to get what they want and foster distrust and hatred to continue the vicious cycle.

This summit is good news. Having a joint Korea (or something close to it), will help the North become stable and less aggressive to the world. It will also open up borders for trade and commerce to flow once again while allowing peace and security to reach all its neighbors without fear of turning back. For the South, it will allow families who have been split for decades to finally reunite and remove threats to their stability and growth.

All that remains now is to see how these talks will fare with Donald Trump when he meet’s with Kim later this year. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has suggested that Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize should the matters of their talks come to fruition. We have yet to see how all of these recent developments stand with our President, and if he wants to truly make a positive difference. One thing for sure, time will tell fast.

Denuclearization is a milestone worthy of applause… but who deserves the applause?

Want to read more international pieces from Independent Asian Inquisitor, subscribe for free by clicking here: LCR