 Hello and welcome to News Clicks International Roundup. Today we will be discussing developments in the situation in Syria and North Korea. We have with us Prabir Prakash, the editor-in-chief of News Clicks. Hello, Prabir. Prabir, let's start with the situation in Syria. The latest round of the Asthan talks were held in the Russian city of Sochi. And this is being held at a very interesting juncture because the Asthan government has also made certain military advances. And Russia, Iran and Turkey have been the key countries. So how do you see the key developments? What have been the key developments that have taken place in these talks and how do you see the way ahead? At the most important part to realize is that action has moved to what used to be the talks that were held under UN ages earlier, the United States, the European powers are a party to it. And now it's essentially being done by parties directly involved in Syria and it does not involve the United States. I think that's a huge change in the international scenario. As we know, the US is still deeply involved because it is supporting the Kurdish forces in the east of Euphrates. It is, in fact, intervened on a couple of occasions, even militarily. So it is not that the US game plan is over in Syria. But nevertheless, it also shows its weakening influence being able to determine the course of other major actors. I think that's the biggest takeaway, that decisive shift has now taken place on the issue of Syria and probably including other parts of West Asia as well. As far as the discussions this time in Sochi is concerned, I think it's also interesting to see how militarily the situation has changed completely. I think this has been the fastest advance the Syrian forces have had in Syria for the last two years. So this is also showing that the decisive balance of forces is now in favor of Bashar al-Assad's government. So that shows also in the way the opposition is split and has essentially, most of them have essentially laid down arms. Some of them even have joined the Syrian army and some of them actually took arms against the ISIS forces and managed to both fight against them. And also the joint operation resulted in some of the ISIS forces who had decided to make a last stand, being actually caught and put hopefully in prison currently. It's also interesting that this is bordering Jolan. So Israel has kept out of the battle. It did not do as it frequently does, support the Al Qaeda, ISIS and other so-called Free Syrian Army forces by coming to their aid indirectly to artillery shelling, use of air power and so on. So this has been a very, very decisive shift militarily. Now the question comes up, there is East of Euphrates, there is the U.S. and the SDF forces and on the north of Idlib. It does appear that before we come to Idlib, we should also look at what is happening in the Kurdish forces. The SDF has started talking to Bashar al-Assad's government. So there is this issue that maybe the U.S. is going to withdraw out of Syria completely. And that is the reason they are also not hindering the discussion that is taking place between SDF and Bashar al-Assad's government. So it's possible that the SDF will concede the borders and agree to be a part of Syria and not declare itself an independent Kurdish state. And if that happens, then what do the Turks do? What does Turkey do becomes the essential issue. And that's what's playing out in Idlib. So you have this contradictory international forces there with one or the other depending on the specific sector. The United States with the SDF against Assad. But if SDF talks to Assad, then what happens? The U.S. is against Turkey with the Kurdish forces. But if the Kurds also work out an agreement with Bashar al-Assad's government, what does the U.S. do then? Does it make up to Turkey, make up with Turkey and say, now your enemy is also my enemy? Do they also try to help Turkey in Idlib? When you get all these issues, it doesn't appear that Idlib is something that the Turks can continue to keep. And it does seem that its position has weakened. It's unlikely that the U.S. will support Turkey or Turkey will seek U.S. support. That doesn't seem to be also happening because they do feel that the U.S. sided with the Kurdish forces and that's something which is a big no-no for them. They may have historical claims, but as you know, everybody has historical claims on the neighbor. That's not something which is new. After all, it's a part of the decolonization as well as a colonization which creates this kind of historical claims. Turkey's position at the moment in Idlib is supported by anything from 30,000 to 50,000 troops who are from ISIS to Al-Qaeda to various other Al-Qaeda light forces and also some of the Islamist groups over there seem to owe allegiance directly to Turkey and a part of the Turkmen forces over there. Let's not also forget there are something like anything between 12,000 to 20,000 guest fighters, Chechens, other groups from Caucasus also from different parts of the world, probably some from Saudi Arabia as well. So there's a huge number of so-called guest fighters over there and they are the ones who are most likely to fight till the last. So this is the issue that Turkey has. How does it live up to its commitments which was to as a part of the de-escalation zone in which Idlib was Turkey's responsibility? It is supposed to have got the militants to lay down arms or to fight against them. It has done neither. So as Bashar al-Jafri ambassador to the United Nations who led the Syrian delegation has said de-escalation zones are not forever. There are some guarantees which are given that we will not enter those places but it is also based on the fact that those who had the de-escalation responsibilities, they had to disarm the militants which they haven't done. So this cannot continue and essentially has said we are going to take back Idlib. Russia has said we'll have to see, we hope this can be resolved emicably. We're talking to Turkey, we're talking to Syria but Idlib has become the new shall we say contestation between Turkey and a more assertive Syria now that it is one decisively in the south. Last point over this is what is Russia's game plan over here? Russia would like good relations with Turkey, would like Syria to take back a territory it has at the moment which is under Turkish control or in the hands of different militant groups. The so-called de-escalation zone is a set of checkpoints Turkey has set up but it is not that it is controlling the rest of the territory. So with this issue Russia's game plan is to do what it seems to have done also in other parts of Syria which is to help the process of getting the Syrian forces and those opposed to Syria to talk to each other and work out a de-escalation which is essentially laying down of arms integrating themselves within the Syrian army and best a amnesty all of this put together and this way of handling it seems to have worked in Syria to this extent the American shall be said model of control of Iraq Afghanistan has clearly failed Afghanistan there at the point at the moment talking about withdrawing from it. So all of this shows the Russian model of actually talking and trying to get a re-approachment without bothering about who their mentors are what their interest is but can we get local groups to talk to each other and then accept Syrian governments control. I think that is the policy to also follow the split the groups each as you know there about 50 odd groups over there they're also killing each other they're fighting each other so given this it may be possible that they can continue to work this out and isolate Turkey and Turkey does not have too many cards at the moment in the game having burnt its bridges to the United States particularly after the coup and the Gulen affair in which they're asking Gulen's return and it's quite possible that the priest that the Christian missionary they have been held by the sanctions imposed on Turkey recently that that that Christian missionary's attempt was to really keep it holding him was an attempt to get Gulen back to work out a barter that hasn't worked is in fact is backfired on Turkey because US is now imposed sanctions. Now whatever way we look at it whether we like sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy or not Turkey doesn't seem to have too many cards so I do think that it may be a matter of three months six months but I think Italy finally will come back to Syria and I also think the east of Euphrates which is the other area which is about 25 to 30 percent of the country which the Kurds have taken under US umbrella that will also integrate back to Syria with some more autonomy given to the Kurdish areas because that area also includes a lot of other Arab people and it's not just Kurdish area it is also Armenian presence various other groups of ethnic identities are there so I think what we are seeing is a victory for Bashar al-Assad which in the next six months to 12 months will see some semblance of unity in Syria again and this is good for Europe as well because it means that Syrian refugees can come back and I think that is a big big burden on all the neighboring countries the bulk of it has been born by Jordan and Turkey so I think this is in everybody's interest now now that Assad has won decisively that not to prolong Syria's agony but let it now come to a state where it can act again as a state which has to look after civic responsibilities and I think this is what everybody should be helping and I hope the United States will not play the spoiler which is what it has done till now in most of these cases so basically what we are seeing is also especially once for instance like you said Idlib returns to the government control the formal burial of the regime change plan that began nearly seven years ago because even though the opposition continues to insist on it I don't think it is actually any more takers serious takers anymore as far as players I think the US has also conceded for the last six months that they have lost the game in Syria so I think the official burial might not have been given to it but a more or less tacit burial has been given by the various spokesperson speaking on this issue so they might still say Assad must go and he is this and he is that but the reality is they are recognizing on the ground that this is a lost case so moving on to North Korea so in North Korea we have a series of strange developments if you can call it that so on the one hand for instance the bodies of the 55 US soldiers were returned by North Korea to the United States yesterday at the same time I think you can see at least parts of the establishment to the media talking about the missile missiles again being developed in certain sites and there's this whole bogey of nuclearization which is being raised again so how do we see the situation right now when on the face of it things are proceeding as planned and even North Korea and South Korea are planning their exchange of the families rewriting of families also next month but at the same time you have series sections of the establishment of the United States especially trying to tear the reel again well you know that Pompeo and Bolton are the two people part of the White House current presidential entourage who are deeply hostile shall we say to the North Korean or DPR case peace accord and what Trump and Kim had negotiated so they have from the beginning made no bones that this is something this that they don't really like and Bolton has always argued that the issue is not what we do issues what North Korea does it must give up everything before we will do anything this is basically what the situation for him is now Trump did of course do one thing after the agreement he stopped the military exercises which North Korea had always said is a pro-quit pro for any peace talks because they had suspended missile tests they had some suspended nuclear tests and having done the unilaterally they had said you must also stop the exercises earlier they were linking this they made it sequential and Trump did reciprocate after the Singapore discussions and he came back and stopped the exercises now what are the next step if you go by the agreement that has been reached and this is one two three four one is essentially normalization of relations South Korea North Korea doing it there's no and as of now there is no indication what is you and USS position on this how they propose to normalize the relations now the normality of the relations is of course also can be seen from the fact there is only an armistice there is no peace agreement in in Korea so they technically are still at war so how do they do that do do they do that a step one or step two the step two was essentially a peace agreement in the Korean Peninsula so do they do that that's the question that still remains as a first step now to towards normalization military exercise have stopped but normalization is a process it is not a step so how does normalization takes place what is the route map for this we have to see now this is what a country should the country the two countries should be discussing and probably also with South Korea whose other key player involved how this normalization process takes place and maybe at some point draw also China and Russia who are the littoral states next-door states do not Korea into this the second point in that agreement is a peace accord peace stick there that's not the Korean Peninsula must be at peace which means move from armistice to a formal peace agreement now this again a rude road map has to be there I don't see any of those things taking place as of now or United States being willing to discuss these issues while the third point and it is a sequential 1 2 3 was denuclearization of the peninsula and this is the only thing Americans want to discuss and that too denuclearization of the peninsula now it's also in important thing of course they have also talked of demilitarization it's also important to realize that while none of these things have happened there is no obligation on North Koreans to either stop any military military military developments including missiles or including say installing more centrifuges they can do goodwill gestures which they have done they have dismantled parts of the test site which means that they don't intend to test in the near future they have they have done only those steps which are already in the pipeline that means they were building some factories they're building some facilities they have not discontinued them they want to complete them any stepping back from these can take place only as a part of a larger demilitarization denuclearization exercise missiles are never in this agreement they have never been mentioned the agreement if at all they come in the denuclearization demilitarization of the peninsula discussions it may come in at some stage but it will also mean a whole lot of gestures in the United States part who discusses Korean peninsula not as a matter of Korean peninsula but the theater of war of the United States so it is talking about that region and how the US security interest in that region must be protected now US security interest in the region it's it's actually near Russia China and Japan what is US security interest and why is that have other countries have given shall we say this on to have the offered that you protect our security interests who are these countries so those are the questions that have to be related I can understand if Japan says that we need the United States we want to be a party to this discussions I can understand the locus of that but the locus of US claiming security interest the borders of other countries China Russia of course North Korea is difficult to understand straight off yes South Korea has obvious security interest but they seem to be willing to work this out so this whole issue of that is being whipped up and US media is very much complicit of this this Washington post is New York times are all carrying op-eds claiming military sources intelligent sources without naming them and talking about how North Korea have North Koreans have been deceiving the United States with assurances which they're not keeping no such assurances have been given there's nothing in the agreement which says they have to stop all of this there's nothing on the agreement which says they have to stop all missile developments all they have done unilaterally is missile tests and nuclear tests and that's it nothing more and that's purely as a good will gesture if that this has to continue it's also true this has to be negotiated further and I don't think Koreans have ever put North Koreans have ever put missile developments on the table yes if you talk of ICBM development you may say no tests you can do laboratory developments design developments but you can't test them that is something it can be negotiated but to claim that they can't put up a shed with that permission from the United States is a very far cry from what both sides have agreed so the question really is why is it happening clearly there are sections in the United States which would like the North Korean agreement to break let's not forget Bolton did want the earlier agreement to break and in fact crowed over the fact that we could take a sledgehammer to the Korean agreement because they had started uranium enrichment which again was not banned on the earlier agreement but they could use it to dismantle the whole agreement now this is the second time Bolton might still try and play that role how to sabotage this agreement now whether Trump is using all of this to build up pressure or North Korea on Kim to basically try and soften him up is this is a matter of gamemanship we have to see how much of Trump is bluff and bluster how much of it is real we don't know but it is true that in the spirit of what the Singapore agreement was if we take that into account and Trump genuinely wanted to reset the relations with North Korea and reset what appear to be heading for a military confrontation there are consequences for everybody and I think that reset we will probably tend to concede unless Trump weakens much more in the United States of course all of the things that are happening the Mueller indictments trying to call him somebody who's a traitor to the United States for not listening to the intelligence reports and so on now this is a domestic politics of the United States in which the whole world has a stake but at the same time has no control so this is something we can keep on discussing till the end of time the reality is at the moment what is impinging on international relations is US domestic politics and that as we have always said is the reason that the world peace is hostage to a minority of people in the United States because as you know the voting percentages in the US are pretty lowest or 50 percent but so even a majority of this 50 percent is actually never is Paul is a minority in the United States but entire international politics of the globe and these are really matters of life and death because it is nuclear weapons all of this is at the moment held hostage to this minority politics of the United States thank you for being that's all we have time for today keep watching your skink