MS Risk Blog

North Korea Announces Possible Plan to Strike Guam After Trump Administration Threat

Tensions this week between North Korea and the United States significantly increased in the wake of US-backed sanctions being passed by the United Nations Security Council and after US President Donald Trump told Pyongyang that any threat to the US would be met with “fire and fury.”

Just hours after President Trump made the statement, Pyongyang’s news agency announced that a plan to hit the US territory of Guam could be enforced at “any moment” once Kim Jong Un makes a decision. A spokesman for the Korean People’s Army stated that the strike plan would be “put into practice in a multi-current and consecutive way any moment” once Kim Jong Un makes a decision, adding that “enveloping fire” would be used to contain major US military bases on the island territory in the western Pacific Ocean – including the Anderson Air Force Base. KCNA, which is Pyongyang’s state-run news agency, also carried a statement from a different military official, which stated that North Korea may carry out a pre-emptive operation if the US shows signs of provocation.

Despite the threat of a possible attack, Guam’s governor, Eddie Calvo, has sated that there was no change in the territory’s threat level and has reassured locals that several layers of defense are strategically placed to protect it. He added that Guam is “not just a military installation,” but American soil with American citizens.

Concerns over North Korea’s intentions to strike the US appeared to increase on Tuesday 8 August, when the Washington Post reported that North Korea has successfully developed a miniaturised nuclear warhead that can fit inside one of its intercontinental ballistic missiles. The newspaper said that claim was contained in a confidential assessment by America’s Defense Intelligence Agency.

On Monday 7 August, North Korea responded angrily after the UN imposed tough new sanctions on the isolated state following the test-firing of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pyongyang stated that the sanctions were caused by a “heinous US plot to isolate and stifle” the country. North Korea officials also threatened to make America “pay the price for its crime…thousands of times.”

Where is Guam and Why is North Korea Threatening it?

Guam is a 210 sq mile sovereign US territory located in the western Pacific Ocean and used by the US as a strategic military base. The island is incredibly remote, with the nearest significant population being in the Federated States of Micronesia, about 570 miles away. Beyond that, Papua New Guinea is 1,400 miles away; the Philippines are 1,600 miles from its shores; and Japan is 1,623 miles. Approximately 40% of Guam’s population of 162,000 is made up of indigenous Chamorro people, while another 25% are Filipino. Almost a third of its land is controlled by the US military, with about 6,000 American troops based there. Its location, which is in range of North Korean medium- and long-range missiles, and military significance to the US therefore makes it a logical target for Pyongyang.

Guam has a limited self-government, with a popularly elected governor, small legislature, and non-voting delegate in the US House of Representatives. Residents do not pay US income taxes or vote in the US presidential election but its natives are US citizens by birth. The US keeps a naval base and coastguard station in the south and an air force base in the north. Protecting the island is the US Army’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, which is used to shot down ballistic missiles.

As recently as 7 August, two US air force B-1B bombers flew from Guam to join their counterparts from South Korea and Japan for a mission over the Korean peninsula, about 2,100 miles away, in which the air forces practised various manoeuvres. In another show of force, the US last month twice flew a pair of supersonic bombers that took off from Guam over the Korean peninsula after two North Korean tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea

On 5 August, the United Nations Security Council unanimously imposed new sanctions on North Korea that could slash by a third the country’s US $3 billion annual export revenue. The move comes over North Korea’s two intercontinental ballistic missile tests, which were carried out last month.

The US-drafted resolution bans North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. It also prohibits countries from increasing the current numbers of North Korean labourers working abroad, bans new joint ventures with North Korea and any new investment in current joint ventures. Speaking to the Council, US Ambassador to the United States Nikki Haley disclosed, “we should not fool ourselves into thinking we have solved the problem. Not even close. The North Korean threat has not left us, it is rapidly growing more dangerous,” adding “further action is required. The United States is taking and will continue to take prudent defensive measures to protect ourselves and our allies.” She further noted that Washington would continue annual joint military exercises with South Korea.

North Korea has denounced the sanctions. According to the North’s official news agency, the sanctions infringed on its sovereignty and vowed to take “righteous action.” The government statement reported by KCNA disclosed that Pyongyang would never place its nuclear programme on the negotiating table as long as the US maintained a hostile policy against the North.

North Korea has accused the US and South Korea of escalating tensions by conducting military drills. China and Russia have also slammed US deployment of the THAAD anti-missile defense system in South Korea, with China’s UN Ambassador Liu Jieyi calling for a halt to the deployment and for any equipment in place to be dismantled. Liu further urged North Korea to “cease taking actions that might further escalate tensions.”

Meanwhile on Monday, South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, agreed to apply maximum pressure and sanctions on North Korea in a telephone call, while China expressed hope that North and South Korea could resume contact soon.

While the UN Security Council has been divided on how to deal with other international crises, such as Syria, the 15-member body has remained relatively united on North Korea. However it must be noted that negotiating new measures typically takes months, not weeks. North Korea has been under UN sanctions since 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programmes. The new measures came in response to five nuclear weapons tests and four long-range missile launches.

South African Hostage Freed After Six Years in Captivity

Reports emerged this month that a South African hostage, who was held by al-Qaeda in Mali since 2011, has been released.

Stephen McGowan was kidnapped from a hotel in Timbuktu along with two other foreign nationals. He last appeared in a video in December 2015, along with another hostage, Swedish national Johan Gustafsson, who was freed in June. On Thursday 3 August, authorities confirmed that he was released after efforts by the two countries’ governments and NGO Gift of the Givers. Sources have indicated that he was freed on 29 July and is now home with his family. While it remains unclear why news of the release was delayed, it is believed that this was a security precaution. The South African government has disclosed that no ransom was paid for Mr McGowan’s release.

Tensions on the Rise as Kenyans Set to Vote Tomorrow

A calm before the storm appears to have settled across Kenya, as the election campaign has finally ended ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Ten years ago post-election ethnic violence erupted in the country, and now no one in Kenya wants to see this repeated. However with opinion polls predicting a very close race between incumbent president Uhuru Kenyatta and opposition leader Raila Odinga, there are growing fears that there could a new wave of violence could erupt. What will occur in Kenya over the coming days will be less about who wins the election and more about how those who have lost take their defeat.

The key to this will be the success of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) computerised voting system process being considered free and fair. In theory, the voting system in Kenya is good as:

• Electronic identity verification should not allow people to vote more than once or the many dead people on the roll to vote at all;
• Results will be announced at the constituency level;
• Published counts will be sent digitally to Nairobi to be added up;
• Election observers will be at thousands of polling stations.

However if it fails, which was the case in 2013, the votes will be counted manually, and verifying the voters’ roll will be a lot harder and may raise suspicions. Furthermore, in a country where vote-rigging has been alleged in the past, it is highly likely that the loser of the election will challenge the results, as was the case in 2013.   During the last election, Raila Odinga turned the courts claiming electoral fraud. He however ended up losing his his case. This time, which is his fourth and probably last attempt to become president, he may turn to the streets if he considers that the election has been stolen, though in recent weeks he has called for calm amongst his supporters.

The IEBC has insisted that the system will work and it has successfully carried out a public “dry run” in order to prove it. However a quarter of polling stations are apparently outside of cellular data range. Furthermore, on 4 August, armed men raided a Nairobi building where the opposition is running its own parallel count and took computers. Later two foreign data analysts working for the opposition were expelled from Kenya. More than 180,000 agents from various organs of state security are also believed to have been deployed for the election. While this could be considered as a prudent security measure, it could also raise fears of polling station intimidation. The worst-case scenario is an extremely close result, a failed electronic voting system and a candidate who is not prepared to concede defeat.

Tensions have already been on the rise in the weeks leading up to the vote. The murder of a key figure a week before the election has really put the country on edge. Chris Msando, the IEBC head of technology, was in charge of the electronic system and was the man who appeared on television to reassure the public it would work and could not be hacked. When it tortured, strangled body was found dumped in a forest, it raised suspicions that somebody was planning to interfere with the election.

If no one wins more than 50% of the vote, then he election will go to a second round, however without a popular third candidate, this seems unlikely. Whatever does happen, the race has pitted two men against each other: Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of Kenya’s first president, against Raila Odinga, the son of its first vice-president and a man who also spent much of his political career in opposition. Mr Kenyatta, the 55-year-old incumbent, wants a second and final term in office for his Jubilee Party after narrowly winning the last election in 2013, despite having International Criminal Court (ICC) charges of inciting violence hanging over him. Mr Kenyatta, an ethnic Kikuyu, and his former rival William Ruto, a Kalenjin, were accused of inciting violence between the two communities. The charges related to the 2007 post-election violence, which killed around 1,200 people and drove hundreds of thousands from their homes. While the ICC case recently collapsed due to lack of evidence and after key witnesses died or disappeared, old ethnic wounds, which were reopened, have still not completely healed.

Rising Social Tensions in Lebanon

The rising social tensions in Lebanon started on 30 June, after the Lebanese army raid on Arsal, a town near the Syrian border. Looking for terrorists in Syrian refugee camps, soldiers were met by five suicide bombers. The army arrested around 350 people, four of whom died in detention. More recently, the appearance of Hezbollah fighters involved in skirmishes around Arsal against militants from both IS and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly al-Nusra Front), and the introduction of the national army, who have set up defensive positions around Arsal, has led to rising tensions among Lebanese citizens. Allegations of torture and mistreatment have since been made, crystallising tensions in Lebanon, which is struggling to cope with an estimated one million Syrian refugees and the threat of IS incursions across the border.

On 16 July, interior minister Nouhad Machnouk banned all protests. This decision was prompted by calls from the left-wing political group Socialist Forum, alongside other human rights and activist groups, to hold a peaceful protest on 18 July in support of Syrian refugees and detainees they believe are being mistreated by the Lebanese army. In response to the ban, the Socialist Forum issued a statement asking for accountability for the death of the four Syrians.

“We just wanted to highlight abuses and demand an independent investigation,” Farah Kobeissi, a member of the Socialist Forum said. “The violence against Syrian refugees is becoming more frequent and is normalised under the appellation of ‘war against terror.’ But even if the army is responsible, there needs to be accountability.”

An autopsy report of the bodies of the four Syrian detainees requested by military prosecutor Judge Saqr Saqr concluded that the deaths resulted from “health complications.” One was said to have died from a sudden heart attack, a second from pneumonia, a third of climate shock and substance abuse, and a fourth of emphysema. The report, however, was not made public. An independent medical analysis ordered by a Zahle judge, Antoine Abi Zeid, almost went through, until the lawyer representing the victim’s families was coerced into handing over forensic samples, intended for the hospital, to military intelligence officers in plain clothes. The same lawyer had previously stated that the detainees were in good health before their bodies were returned with clear signs of torture.

Pictures widely shared on social media and by Human Rights Watch (HRW) show deep gashes around the men’s wrists, as well as burns, bruises, and in one case, congealed blood around the man’s ear. A physician stated to HRW, “it would be reasonable to conclude that the death of these men is the result of in-custody violence.”

Allegations of torture are not new in Lebanon. In 2014, a UN report stated that ‘torture in Lebanon is a pervasive practice that is routinely used by armed forces and law enforcement agencies.’

An increase in discrimination is also causing tension between Lebanese and Syrian refugees. Farah Salkha, the executive director of the Anti-Racism Movement, racism is reaching “peaks of levels of violence and hatred towards refugees.” Salkha said, “Refugees have slowly and gradually turned into the ‘black sheep’ of this place and they are supposed to be silent, invisible, obedient, do as instructed or risk their lives, get killed and be blamed for it.”