N. Korea gives Trump nuclear crisis

George W. Bush invaded Iraq to remove its – ultimately nonexistent – weapons of mass destruction. Barack Obama used cyber weaponry and sanctions to deter Iran from building its own atomic bomb. Now Donald Trump faces North Korea, but stopping its nuclear and missile program may prove impossible, creating what may be his first and perhaps defining international crisis.

Trump has been left to confront North Korea’s nuclear activities because his predecessors failed to manage them. The regime in Pyongyang, meanwhile, continues to build ever more dangerous – and hard-to-destroy or intercept – weapons systems.

North Korea has been a thorn in the side of the United States since the days of Harry S. Truman. The Korean War came dangerously close to sparking a nuclear confrontation, with the White House preventing U.S. commander Douglas MacArthur from using atomic weapons to stop the Chinese and North Korean armies. Under Pyongyang’s current leader Kim Jong-un, it is reaching what may be its most dangerous point since then.

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a host of disagreements with Trump. They think he is wrong on immigration, too soft on Russia, too dangerously hawkish on China. On North Korea they are in the same hole as he is with no real ideas about how to get out.

This is a crisis everyone has seen coming. That’s why Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been so desperate to court Trump, visiting him even before the inauguration. As North Korea launched an intermediate medium-range ballistic missile on Sunday, Abe was once again with the president – this time on a golf and bonding trip to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida retreat.It’s also why U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis made his first official trip to the region. His priority was to reassure Japan and South Korea in particular that the United States would stand with them – whatever noises Trump made during his election campaign.

Pyongyang first demonstrated its ability to detonate a crude nuclear device in 2006 – becoming the only Iraq- or Iran-style “rogue state” to ever get that far. Since then, it has continued to develop not just the bombs but also the missiles to deliver them.

Ultimately, the regime would love to have the ability to strike the continental United States – a prospect Trump has tweeted to say “won’t happen”. For now, however, there are few signs anyone has a plan to stop it.

It’s not that Pyongyang has ambitions to launch some kind of unilateral strike – that would be suicidal. What it wants is a deterrent to protect it from any kind of Iraq- or Libya-style “regime change”.

To achieve that, it first needs a limited number of landbased nuclear-tipped rockets with the ability to strike at least as far as Japan. Each test brings that goal closer.

In the slightly longer term, it wants to be able to mount rockets and warheads on a small fleet of diesel electric submarines. These could be positioned offshore or along its mountainous coastline, hard to track and destroy and – because of the unpredictability of their locations – harder to intercept should the rockets one day be launched.

Nothing the United States has done has seriously frustrated that ambition. In the af- termath of the Iraq invasion, Bush had limited success in using financial aid – and the threat of greater sanctions – to persuade Pyongyang to slow its program, even demolishing a cooling tower at the nuclear facility in Yongbyon. That still wasn’t enough to stop the 2006 nuclear test. And with the accession of Kim Jong-un after the death of his father in 2011, North Korea has been much more single-minded in its atomic ambitions.Following the apparent success of the Stuxnet computer worm against the Iranian nuclear program, there are suggestions the Obama administration tried something similar against North Korea, but the attempt was much less successful. Such covert activities have likely continued, but they may not be enough.

Since Bill Clinton in the nineties, successive U.S. presidents have been presented with options for more direct action such as air and missile strikes. How successful they would be, however, has never been clear. Pyongyang has no shortage of ways in which it could respond, not least through using conventional artillery to strike U.S. and South Korean targets. The South Korean capital, with its population of more than 10 million, is firmly in range of North Korean guns which, like its nuclear program, are believed to be stored in deep, hard–to-destroy bunkers.

One option now on the table would be for the United States to attempt to intercept a future North Korean missile test with some of its anti-ballistic missiles in the region. That didn’t happen on Sunday, perhaps in part because that test occurred over a relatively short distance, mostly over or near North Korean territory. Attempting to shoot down a longer-range missile test would be easier – but the success of such an action could never be guaranteed. If it failed, the United States would essentially have advertised its inability to intercept a North Korean missile, sparking even greater concern in the region.The political fallout of a botched intercept would also be significant for any U.S. president.That leaves diplomatic options, such as applying pressure through China. Beijing’s economic support for North Korea is vital to its survival, and the topic was likely high on the agenda during Trump’s first call with the Chinese premier. But China is reluctant to do anything that might bring about the collapse of the regime and potentially put South Korean or U.S. troops on its border. Beijing has also long argued that anything it did to undermine North Korea might hasten the unraveling of the regime, bringing with it the danger that Pyongyang might lash out, perhaps with nuclear force.There are a variety of potential targets for North Korea even if it cannot reach the United States. They include regional U.S. bases such as Guam as well as South Korea. Many experts believe a Japanese target might be the most likely, not least because of lingering resentment over atrocities in World War Two.In time, that threat might be enough to prompt Tokyo to acquire its own nuclear arsenal – something that would antagonize Beijing, and arguably make the region even more volatile. Trump may see himself as a master of the “art of the deal”, and has raised the prospect he might meet North Korean leaders. His problem is that there may be no deal to be done. This situation may become more dangerous – perhaps until something truly cataclysmic happens. Edappadi K Palaniswami was finally sworn in as the 13th Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, thereby ending an unending wait for Governor C. Vidyasagar Rao to arrive at a constitutionally correct decision and also halting the unjustified ambitions of the former CM O. Panneerselvam. The internal fight within the two warring factions of the AIADMK has clearly established that V.K. Sasikala, the party general secretary, may have lost the battle to be the Chief Minister herself, but has ultimately emerged triumphant in preventing Panneerselvam from occupying the august office. However, the instability in the state is likely to continue for some time, till an undisputed leader with both mass appeal and a hold over the party emerges to inherit the legacy of J. Jayalalithaa, who after her demise has left the AIADMK with four and half years to administer the state. Thus it is for her party to ensure that the mandate of the people does not fritter away on account of the sharp differences amongst a handful of top leaders. As a matter of fact, the developments related to Tamil Nadu have raised questions to answers related to the action of both the judiciary as well as the Constitutional office of the Governor. Vidyasagar Rao has sufficient experience of political and public life so as to discern the correctness and application of the Constitutional provisions. His actions regarding the political deadlock in the state have left several legal luminaries wondering whether he was justified in delaying the appointment of the Chief Minister after he had accepted Panneerselvam’s resignation, an irreversible act. Either deliberately or inadvertently or under instructions from the Central government, Rao contributed to the confusion as he attempted to stop Sasikala from taking oath even after she had presented him with the signatures of around 130 MLAs who were supporting her. In the process, he virtually gave a lifeline to Panneerselvam to remain in the race by agreeing to meet him on multiple occasions. This was done evidently since Rao and his advisers appeared sure that Sasikala was likely to be convicted in the disproportionate assets case and therefore swearing her in would be futile. The question that comes to mind is: can the Governor or anyone else second guess the Apex Court and base his actions on the set presumption? The BJP and its spokespersons, as also some Congress leaders like P. Chidambaram, did their utmost to defend the Governor’s action, thereby propping up Panneerselvam, who continued to stake his claim without having the required numbers.

It might be argued now that the Governor’s judgement proved correct and Sasikala was eventually convicted. However, his actions left legal circles perplexed on whether he had overstepped the role assigned to him by the Constitution, and thereby encouraged political horse trading by delaying the swearing-in ceremony. After Sasikala’s subsequent conviction, an impression was sought to be created by Panneerselvam’s group that the MLAs were being held captive at a resort much against their will, though they continued to support the general secretary’s nominee, Palaniswami, overwhelmingly. At this stage, another argument was then introduced in Tamil Nadu’s theatre of the absurd that the two Chief Ministerial claimants should seek a vote of confidence through a secret ballot so as to ascertain their strength. Firstly, neither the Constitution nor the law permits for two CMs to prove their majority through a secret ballot, since the chosen one has to exhibit the numbers in an open and transparent manner. Uninformed sections of media insisted on painting Sasikala’s camp in a satanic light, while in the same breath portraying Panneerselvam as the sole saviour of Jayalalithaa’s legacy. No one pointed out adequately that when Panneerselvam’s supporters celebrated Sasikala’s sentencing, they were concurrently also celebrating the conviction of Jayalalithaa who was the main accused in the case.There are questions that are coming to the fore regarding the judiciary. The matter pertained to the period when Jayalalithaa was the CM from 1991 to 1996. It took more than 20 years to arrive at a verdict. The Apex Court as well reserved its judgement in June last year and should have announced it within three months, as per an earlier Supreme Court ruling. The delay in the judgement effectively meant that Jayalalithaa, who was found to be corrupt, could rule the state till her demise in December. The matter highlights the necessity to bring in judicial reforms to fasten the process of justice. The Apex Court judgement is final, yet it has not prevented citizens from asking questions regarding the order. A case of disproportionate assets can only be made against a public servant and out of the accused, only the former CM fitted the bill. Others were guilty of abetting her. Therefore after her death, the case against her had become infructuous. What needs to be explained in detail is how then non public servants have been sentenced under the disproportionate law. Should they not have been hauled up under either the Income Tax Act or other relevant sections which involve accumulation of unaccounted and unexplained wealth? No one can question the wisdom of the Supreme Court or the noble intention of its learned judges, but the final judgement continues to baffle some legal luminaries, particularly because it got juxtaposed with the dramatic political developments in Tamil Nadu. Greater clarity on the issue is needed. Vidyasagar Rao has also not covered himself with glory. Dr Subramanian Swamy, who had filed the case against Jaya, had continuously questioned his actions. In the end, Rao did what he should have done much earlier. Therefore, the Centre must immediately appoint a regular Governor in the state and not leave it as an additional charge. Between us.