 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Prabir Purkarasa, the editor-in-chief of NewsClick, to discuss some of the recent international developments, starting with the recent diplomatic war between Russia and other Western nations. So we're seeing this diplomatic war has escalated to a scale which is quite surprising. U.S. has expelled many diplomats and Russia has also done so in return, and other Western nations have also expelled many Russian diplomats, which all started with the alleged case of poisoning of the Skripals. So do you think this diplomatic war could be a way to divert attention from the U.S. policies in West Asian countries, especially Syria? Well, there are various conjectures of why this has come in the form it has. It really, in this case, is not the United States which has taken or shall we say triggered the issues. It's really the United Kingdom. So the argument is United Kingdom has done it because they want to distract attention from the Brexit negotiations, where Theresa May doesn't seem to be getting any traction. But these are all conjectures. We don't know. What is interesting is the following. I think this is something on a scale which you have not seen except during the height of Cold War. So this sudden escalation on the basis of the alleged, as you said, the poisoning of the two Skripals and taking it to this level is really not explicable by what I will call normal politics. That means if it was really just a question of attempted assassination and they thought Russia was guilty of that, then the procedure should have been something else. Procedure should have been go to the OPCW, which is the body to look at chemical weapons and violations of chemical weapon agreements, submit the evidence to that, let Russia examine the evidence, give Russia access to at least their citizen, which is Yulia Skripal, the daughter who's definitely a Russian citizen, give access to their family to these two people. None of this has happened. So there has been no consular access given, which is a violation of international law. And this is also a violation that simple human rights violation that their family members have not been able to talk to them. And it's also a violation of the chemical weapons treaty by which at least the proper procedure would have been to present the evidence to Russia. So why the UK decided to bypass all of it and go straight away to an accusation that this is clearly a Russian hand? Again the evidence they have submitted has been contradicted by many people. A is Novichok, something which was completely Russian and nobody else knew about it. Now it's clear that Novichok was known to the United States and to United Kingdom. Their diplomats were asked in the, again in the chemical weapons discussions, they were asked to completely bypass, stop or shall we say stifle any discussion with respect to Novichoks or the chemicals that were being called Novichoks. It's never a name Russia seems to have given. And in fact, therefore there is this question mark why this was done. We're not clear. We have a Clinton email in WikiLeaks which has now been, has been made, has become public, which is always public but which has now been fished out by some of the people. And all of it creates this doubt that there was, there was, there was a particular reason why the UK and the US did not want this to be disclosed. It's also known that the US was involved in dismantling the entire laboratory in which this weapons were being, this chemicals were being tested. So they also had access to it. So it's completely wrong to say only Russians knew about this and they, this therefore it's, we have complete evidence as the UK is saying that it could only be Russians. In fact, the language also seems to indicate is a class of chemicals which believed to be to be Russian kind of thing. So even that identification has not been clear. Why on the basis of that such a major diplomatic row has been created. It's actually even for me, and I've been following this quite closely. It's actually completely different, inexplicable to me. Is it build up to boycotting the World Cup in football? Is it as trivial as that? Is it to distract attention from Theresa May's problems with Brexit? Is it the United States trying to up the ante because of what shall we say the victory? The Russians seem to have won against US proxies in Syria. All of this is on the table. But at the end of it, why the war should be brought close to a near war, the world should be brought to a near war condition as it is happening now. With so many people being sent back, so many diplomats being sent back on an issue which otherwise appears to be very much dicey. Experts are very skeptical that the United Kingdom has evidence. Why on the basis such major diplomatic actions are being taken is not clear. It's clear the United Kingdom and the US have a plan in mind. And this is in that sense moving towards an end game. What that end game is, is it simply to make Russia the evil empire again make ostracized Putin, have a western ring around Russia, isolate Russia far more. Is that the end game or is the end game something else? We have to really see the events as it unfolds. And now moving on to the North Korean peace process. The North Korean president recently said in China that they are willing to denuclearize if certain security guarantees are provided. And the US North Korea talks are scheduled in May. So if these happen, do you think the stance of US, the provocative stance of US would change? Well, you know, here is the issue. Of course, once you call it provocative stand, you've already taken a position. So I would say that this is not what North Korea has said or the North Korean president has said with the Chinese president is not new. It's also interesting that none of the western agencies seem to have covered this. What should have been a major news event that here is North Korean president and the Chinese president meeting talking about how to get peace in Korea in the Korean peninsula. I think this is the important news event. But this was really sort of put, you know, at the back burner, so to say in terms of news. It didn't come out in very prominent form in any of the western news reports. The interesting part is what North Korea has said is not new. This has been said by them time and again. They have not said they're not willing to denuclearize. That's not a statement they have made. They have always said that such a process can only take place if North Korea has guarantees, DPRK has guarantees of certain kinds. And these guarantees have been that they should not be targeted by nuclear weapons. There should be no major military exercises which are done provocatively by the United States and other NATO allies including South Korea on the borders of North Korea or what is the 38th parallel which is the line of factual control that was established in 1953. And the third there must be durable peace. Now the last is very important because what has happened between United States and its allies and North Korea is that there is an armistice. Armistice is really a ceasefire. So there is a declaration of ceasefire but there is no actual peace treaty which has been signed. That this war is ended, the Korean war is ended and therefore this 38th parallel is what we decide is the line of control between the two sides and this is the result of a peace agreement. That's never happened. So what we have is a line of actual control which has been frozen only by virtue of what we call a temporary ceasefire. So this is something which the Koreans have always put on the table. Now I think the United States was sort of taken aback by the virtue of South Korean initiating. And the South Korean initiative should also be seen in the context of the South Korean elections where the president who came into power has talked about what was the earlier predecessor who had not become the one just before. But the predecessors before who have talked about the basically the sunshine strategy that we should try and bring peace in the Korean peninsula, get North Korea and South Korea to talk to each other, bring down the military tensions and start the peace process. And it is true that the steps had been taken before the presidents who came in the last two presidents who won in South Korea, both of whom went back on this policy. The current president Moon has actually been in favor of renewing the sunshine policy again. In fact he was overtaken by the events, the nuclear weapons testing by North Korea again and the missile tests, the hydrogen bomb test and the missile test. All of this took South Korea by surprise. So what they have done after this is to restart the process again. And as we saw in the Winter Olympics, then right now president of North Korea, Kim, did go to a musical event of a South Korean music troupe in North Korea. So we are seeing signs of thaw between the two Koreas. And if the two Koreas are willing to come to a peaceful agreement of some kind, it's going to be difficult for Japan and the United States to ratchet up the pressure. So I think that's one thing on the table. At the same time we have Bolton who is now the National Security Advisor of the United States who was instrumental and tearing up the earlier peace initiative. He was the key person who really broke all the agreements from the United States sides regarding North Korea. And as he put it, the fact that they were trying to process uranium and build fissile-grade uranium through centrifuging route, which was not a violation of the original agreement between the United States and North Korea. But that was used by Bolton as a hammer to break the peace agreement completely. And I think that sets the whole process back considerably. The fact that Bolton has now become the National Security Advisor doesn't bode well for the peace talks that we were talking about. But it is true that with South Korea playing the peacemaker, it is true that there is a hope that Trump and his administration also will fall in line. Japan here doesn't want to be left out of the sidelines. So they're also now trying to see how they can play a role. But the point is Japan has been very much hawkish on this. The current prime minister, he actually wants to start nuclear arms, developing nuclear arms or moving towards militarization of Japan. So for him, North Korea was a trigger by which the militarization of Japan, developing nuclear weapons for Japan, was on the cards. So if the peace process takes place in South Korea and North Korea, between the two Koreas, it will also be very difficult for Japan to re-militarize, which is what Abe really wants to do. So I'm hopeful, more hopeful today than earlier, that it is the dynamics of the Korean issue will be done between the two Koreas, rather than between North Korea and Trump, North Korea and Japan, because I don't think that would be very fruitful. But if the two Koreas drive it, then I think we have some hope that we'll get peace. So thank you for joining us today and thank you for watching NewsClick.