On North Korea’s nuclear testing

As of this writing, North Korea is on the news after the detection of a magnitude five earthquake – one attributed to another incident nuclear testing. Naturally, the international community is alarmed. It is the fifth time, and the government has been keen on reporting its success in developing its nuclear program.

North Korea is already a pariah of sorts. It a closed economy, and only a limited number of members of the media from the outside are able to get a glimpse of life north of the 38th parallel. What we know of their country is based on very few reports, of defections, of alleged spies or idiotic tourists (for example, the American student who supposedly thought it to be a good idea to steal a propaganda poster) being punished.

So when the North Korean government’s own media makes announcements, it can be expected to land on major news outlets. And that is what just happened.

Before this, over the course of 10 years, Pyongyang has made various claims regarding its nuclear capability. In 2006, it supposedly released a nuclear bomb with an energy discharge of one kiloton. Three years later, it was a 2-8 kiloton bomb. Four years later, it is said to have developed a bomb with uranium. Then it talked about having conducted a test of a thermonuclear warhead or H-bomb.

Nobody is able to confirm all of these reports. On the part of the United States, the White House appears to have a policy of not taking the threats seriously. At the same time, it has been strengthening its military relationship with South Korea. It is likewise notable that North Korea has been careful to describe its efforts as a “pre-emptive strike” as US and South Korea are set to hold joint military exercises.

This squarely places the onus on the United States’ shoulders: If the Americans are not to make provocative moves, they will not be conducting the nuclear tests.

The fact is that the US has not much of a moral ascendancy to lecture other countries about activities that can potentially harm the innocent. As we speak, drones funded by the US taxpayer money are being flown, and airstrikes are regularly conducted in cooperation with the NATO allies. Both the US and North Korea are spending a lot on all these measures while so many are hungry and poor.

There has got to be an end to this madness.

Note: Rick Kimball is a blogger and online writer. He enjoys writing about history. To read more of Rick's work, you can check out Rick Kimball's War, Peace and Freedom Blog. You can also check him out on Facebook and Twitter.

Proxy wars

Things are not always what they seem, including wars. Especially wars, which often involve the economic, social, and geopolitical interests of entire populations. Nothing is a better example than the subject of the war in Syria, whose ramifications are still unclear to most people. But as the crisis develops, the world is now seeing a country apparently torn by a proxy war.

A proxy war refers to a war where the supposedly warring parties are simply acting as pawns (or proxies) of the bigger powers who, for one reason or another, cannot entertain the possibility of fighting these wars themselves.

In the case of Syria, many have opined that it appears to be a proxy war between US-Russia, and there is a good case for it.

Officially, the reason why US and its allies are backing rebels to topple the rule of Bashar al-Assad is to stop its despotism, with Obama issuing statements to condemn Assad’s alleged acts of state repression. But critics of American foreign policy have called out the hypocrisy on US’ part, as it is generally quiet about the excesses of dictatorships in its allied countries, especially the notorious Saudi Arabian monarchy. But a closer look at the different parties involved – as well as their vested interests in this war – will make us think twice.

Fighting for or alongside US are the rebel Free Syrian Army, Israel, United Kingdom, Turkey, France and some countries in the Gulf region such as Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Russia, for its part, maintains a naval base Syria, and needs a loyal ally in that region, which the regime of Assad has proven to be. Iran and Iraq have also supported Syria, which, like them, has a predominantly Shiite population. Iran’s Hezbollah has since also deployed militias to complement Assad’s troops, in their fight against the rebels.

This topic merits our attention because if the real warring parties’ political and economic agenda are not being discussed openly, the world opinion simply becomes part of their script and no one becomes accountable for the consequences of their actions. In the meantime, many innocent lives people on the ground are becoming ruined by the war, and the ulterior motives of other parties are preventing the formation of an honest-to-goodness unified resistance to ISIS.

In the end, the civilians of Iraq, Syria, and other countries now being destroyed by ISIS deserve better help.

NOTE: This is a guest blog post by Rick Kimball. Rick is a freedom lover. He enjoys researching and writing about US history and shares them on his blog rickkimball.org. For more on him, check out his LinkedIn and Google+ profiles.