Connect with us


What is Kim Yo Jong's exact role in North Korean politics? Top South Korean officials appear divided – CNN



South Korean Unification Minister Lee In-young told a committee of South Korean lawmakers Tuesday that he believed there was not enough evidence to draw such conclusions about Kim Yo Jong’s exact role in North Korea’s opaque political system.
Speaking to a different committee on Tuesday, Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo said that he believed Kim was running the Organization and Guidance Department (OGD) of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party (WPK), the party body that deals with ideological indoctrination, party organization and political appointments. Running the OGD is one of the most important political posts in North Korea. If Kim were in charge of it, it would likely be a sign of her increasing status and power.
Jeong’s comments appeared to give further credence to last week’s assessment by South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) that Kim Jong Un had decided to delegate more of his powers to senior officials surrounding him, including Kim Yo Jong, to ease his workload.
Kim has for years been a trusted aide and confidante to her brother. She previously served as one of North Korea’s top propagandists and is now an alternate member to the Politburo — the senior body of North Korea’s ruling party.
Talk of Kim Yo Jong’s increasing role in North Korean politics has previously fueled speculation about her brother’s health. Kim Jong Un historically has kept a grueling schedule filled with public appearances, but he disappeared a handful of times from the public eye earlier this year, sometimes for weeks on end. He also reportedly has a very unhealthy lifestyle.

An unsurprising split

While it’s unusual for diverging intelligence opinions from active government officials like Jeong and Lee to become public, the split itself is not surprising. Government officials in South Korea and the United States are often forced to draw conclusions about North Korea based on very little information, given Pyongyang’s notorious secrecy.
North Korea does not make information about its government and leadership structure readily available to the outside world, nor does it keep its citizens regularly informed of key personnel decisions. There is no free press inside North Korea to independently monitor and report on leadership changes in either the government or the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea. The country’s propaganda machine strictly controls what information is published inside North Korea while censoring most content from the outside world.
Jeong and Lee work in different areas of North Korea policy. Jeong is charged with protecting South Korea from the North, while Lee is responsible for negotiating with Pyongyang and the possible reunification of the two Koreas.
Though Jeong and Lee appear to disagree on Kim Yo Jong’s exact role, the two ministers — and the NIS — agree that Kim Jong Un remains North Korea’s ultimate authority and retains a firm grip on power.
Rumblings about Kim Yo Jong’s position in North Korea come as the country is facing several pressing challenges that have seriously impacted the Kim Jong Un regime’s promise to improve the economy and living standards for average North Koreans.
Borders have been closed for months to keep the Covid-19 pandemic at bay. Nuclear talks with the US have proved fruitless. Deadly torrential rains have wreaked havoc on the country in recent weeks, and a typhoon is on the way.
Images released by North Korean state media Wednesday show Kim Jong Un holding a politburo meeting.
Kim Jong Un chaired an emergency meeting Tuesday to discuss the pandemic and efforts to prepare for Typhoon Bavi, which is forecast to make landfall Wednesday or Thursday as the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane either on the west coast of the Korean Peninsula or in China. North Korea’s derelict infrastructure and poor road network make the country extremely vulnerable to inclement weather.
Kim Yo Jong does not appear in any of the photographs released by North Korean state media of Tuesday's meeting.Kim Yo Jong does not appear in any of the photographs released by North Korean state media of Tuesday's meeting.
Kim Yo Jong did not appear in any of the photographs of Tuesday’s meeting released by North Korean state media. While that doesn’t necessarily mean she was not present at the meeting — she could have been off-camera — Kim has not been reported present at multiple important party meetings this summer. Experts say her absence is unusual, but could be explained by mundane reasons like illness or having other business to attend to.
Neither the North Korean government nor the country’s state media has explained her absences.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link


SAD reinventing its regional politics – The Tribune India



Chandigarh: The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has said the Akali Dal-BJP alliance breakup was a result of the fast depleting voter base of the Akalis. AAP leaders claimed that the breakup was not because of any difference in political ideology or the gross injustice to farmers. It is only after seeing the massive reaction that the three agriculture Acts have generated among farmers, that the SAD decided to snap ties with the BJP. Many in the party believe that the move may not help either of the alliance partners in wooing the big chunk of voters from among farmers, but they are ceding political space.“Eh nauh maas da rishta sarakde voteran ne khatam kita hai,” says state AAP president Bhagwant Mann. “Till 10 days ago, each and every leader of the Akali Dal was trying to defend the Acts. Now that they saw the anti-party sentiment, they are making last-ditch efforts to save the vote bank,” he said. tns

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Governance, politics and morality – Mumbai Mirror




It’s perilous to infuse a stiff dose of morality into the pursuit and practice of politics because after a point, the amalgam doesn’t work. It becomes a contortion of the envisaged formula. An excess of morality makes the mixture suspicious and hypocritical while used niggardly, the veil of righteousness comes apart before it can begin masking statecraft.

‘Naitikta’ and ‘sadachar’ are Hindi synonyms for morality and feature like a mantra, especially in the speeches of BJP leaders. The temptation to treat every political and policy initiative as a religious crusade, a ‘dharma yudh’ against a degenerate system, is the hallmark of BJP politics. The crusading zeal was tempered by pragmatism in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee era because Vajpayee was realistic enough to know that the cocktail of ‘naitikta’ and ‘shuddh rajneeti’ was deadly and not worth experimenting with. He had a horde of dissimilar parties in the NDA coalition to keep his government going. Not all of them shared the RSS’s contorted notions of pedagogic politics.

There was a phase when hard as it tried, the BJP couldn’t ambush the Congress on corruption, even when the dirt flew all over in the UPA’s second tenure. By then, the Congress had dug up dope on the BJP’s wheeling and dealing, BS Yeddyurappa’s allegedly shady land transactions, the Bellary brothers and so on. Therefore, when Anna Hazare arrived from the boondocks of Maharashtra to Delhi and declared a holy war against the UPA’s corruption, the RSS quickly co-opted the former military man as a mascot. It ensured that the BJP was in the shadows lest its presence discredit the Hazare project. He fitted into the RSS’s idea of a ‘model’ citizen because he whipped tipplers in his village square. To the Sangh, drinking alcohol was a blind imitation of the derivative practices that came to India with colonialism along with English and the suit-boot and knee length dresses for the Macaulay ‘putra’ and ‘putri’. Never heard of ‘bhang’ and ‘handia’, bhang being de rigueur with northern BJP leaders during Holi?

Narendra Modi is not Vajpayee. He has the numbers in Parliament, an Opposition that awakens from slumber now and then, the state’s iron boot and the RSS’s endorsement. Whatever else Modi cherishes, he is steeped in the RSS’s ideas and way of life. He subscribes to the Sangh’s definition of dharma, which is not religion as you and I understand but a larger moral and cultural order that must permeate and ‘cleanse’ society of western thoughts and values. Therefore, when corruption was fought against, the drive got evangelic and enmeshed with the RSS’s certitude of upholding ‘public morality’. Tax compliance was enforced through a regime that put the fear of god in the corporate sector and the small and medium enterprises, which were sold on Modi’s ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ maxim before 2014. India Inc was one of Modi’s strongest supporters in 2014 and 2019. Wonder what the big wheels have to say about the enforcement agencies’ pursuit of a celebrated banker and her family? She was the toast of the Vibrant Gujarat summits hosted in Gandhinagar.

Like Bollywood. Remember that epic selfie that the bright young actors and directors clicked with the prime minister shortly after he won asecond term? They looked obsequious. Think of the one who stuck out prominently for attention. His spouse was quizzed for allegedly smoking weed and her phone was impounded. This is jihad against Bollywood’s drug mafia. So what if the stars stood up for Modi?

ABJP cheerleader excitedly framed the crackdown on the film industry as the only way to exhume the trail that cannabis and cocaine consumption left, smash it and ‘detoxify’ the moral environment. The sadachar underpinning of the “crusade” against corruption and the drug league is unmistakeable. If the exercise was merely political and administrative, it wouldn’t click with the RSS-BJP faithful and an ever-expanding constituency that has begun to view Modi more as a savant, a maharishi, and less as a politician.

Does gender parity bother the RSS because the drug sleuths have demonstrated a preference to go after women? No, because feminism is an imported concept that doesn’t go with their image of a ‘sanskari’ woman, who is naturally underempowered and never thinks for herself. The obsession with a warped view of morality drove the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath, to unleash anti-Romeo squads on young couples dating in public spaces and initiate ‘Mission Durachari’. The latter operation intends to name and shame harassers of women on posters. In a state that reports at least one rape and murder of a minor every other day (what of the rapes and assaults that go unreported for fear of social ostracism?) and holds little or no hope of convicting the rapists, the mission makes no sense except to score a moral point.

Ravi Kishan, the Gorakhpur MP, was the first BJP leader to publicly laud the anti-drug movement in Bollywood. Kishan drew his salience from being a part of the same industry about which he is self-righteous. His moral demagoguery was rejected by his BJP colleagues, Hema Malini and Babul Supriyo, both celebrities and successful politicians. Is there a cautionary tale for the virtuous custodians of the Sangh Parivar?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Political Groups Begin Dueling Over Barrett in a Costly Clash – The New York Times



WASHINGTON — The declarations of political war started coming fast as President Trump stepped to the podium in the Rose Garden of the White House on Saturday evening to announce his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

By the time she had finished her speech accepting the nomination, less than 30 minutes later, more than a dozen groups supporting and opposing her nomination had announced, or were poised to announce, advertising and grass-roots advocacy campaigns that were expected to bombard airwaves, Facebook feeds and Senate inboxes.

If activists’ fervor and spending commitments hold, the battle over Judge Barrett’s nomination could near $40 million in spending — and potentially much more — and help define the final five weeks of the presidential campaign between Mr. Trump and Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The goal is ostensibly to try to shape the Senate vote on Judge Barrett’s nomination but, barring some unforeseen development or revelation, there is little expectation that Democrats will be able to stop the Republican-controlled Senate from confirming the judge, who has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since November 2017.

Still, partisans on both sides have not made a secret of their plans to use the confirmation fight for political gain.

For Democrats, it is a chance to rally their base, and donors, by highlighting the suddenly very real prospect of a Republican president and Senate delivering a long-lasting conservative Supreme Court majority that could strike down some of the hardest-fought victories of the last half-century, including the Affordable Care Act and the right to an abortion.

For Republicans, it represents an opportunity to secure support from leery conservatives who may have drifted from Mr. Trump, and to energize core parts of the Republican base — including evangelical and Catholic voters — by elevating issues of religion and accusing Democrats of religious intolerance for opposing Judge Barrett, an observant Catholic who is a member of a self-described charismatic Christian community called People of Praise.

Leading Democrats and their allies have signaled that they intend to steer clear of personal criticisms of Judge Barrett, eager to avoid a conservative backlash like the one that emerged in response to Democratic questioning during her 2017 Senate confirmation hearing. During that hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told the judge that “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

A repeat, Democrats fear, could hurt Mr. Biden, a Catholic himself who openly discusses his faith and hopes to win over Catholic voters despite Mr. Trump’s strong performance with them four years ago.

Mr. Biden’s allies have mostly approached the subject more cautiously and obliquely, raising Judge Barrett’s religious beliefs primarily in the context of her jurisprudence and her associations.

The Democratic super PAC American Bridge, which has through Sunday spent more than $36 million opposing Mr. Trump, released an opposition research file highlighting Judge Barrett’s affiliations with religious conservative groups that oppose abortion rights. The file included the false claim that she was a member of a Trump-allied conservative legal nonprofit group called the Thomas More Society, which is suing to block Democratic cities from accepting private funds to administer elections during the pandemic, arguing it would help Mr. Biden’s campaign. (American Bridge removed the claim that Judge Barrett was a member of the Thomas More Society after being asked about it by The New York Times.)

The research file also highlighted a scholarly paper Judge Barrett helped to write in the late 1990s about how the Catholic Church’s campaign against capital punishment “puts Catholic judges in a bind” between their oath to enforce the death penalty and their obligation “to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.”

Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

But some Democrats have been more pointed in calling attention to Judge Barrett’s faith. Katie Hill, a former congresswoman from California who runs a political action committee supporting Democratic women, wrote on Twitter last week that Judge Barrett “comes from a religion that is straight out of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’” — the dystopian novel and television series about a totalitarian state that has overthrown the United States government — “because of course she does,” adding an expletive for emphasis.

Ms. Hill said in an email on Sunday that her political action committee, HER Time, was working to rally opposition to Judge Barrett’s confirmation, and that questions about whether the judge “will impose her faith on the American people” were fair game. “Someone’s religion is important when their religious beliefs are part of the way they make decisions that come before that court,” Ms. Hill said, accusing Judge Barrett of holding “anti-women, anti-L.G.B.T.Q. positions, which are rooted in her religion” and saying they would “factor into her decisions on the court.”

Republicans have eagerly highlighted similar attacks, as well as examples of liberals scrutinizing Judge Barrett’s family — she has seven children, including two adopted from Haiti.

Mr. Trump, at a White House news conference on Sunday afternoon, accused Democrats of “really brazenly attacking Judge Barrett for, again, her faith.” Singling out Senator Feinstein, the president said, “I think they ought to treat religion with much more respect.”

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List on Saturday evening began a digital advertising campaign featuring a one-minute video that calls attention to Judge Barrett’s legal bona fides and religious background, and accuses Democrats of “attacking her faith.” The ad is part of what the group says will be “a seven-figure investment” supporting Judge Barrett’s confirmation.

The White House has encouraged social and religious conservative groups to focus on Judge Barrett’s personal life in their campaigns supporting her confirmation. During a private conference call with more than 500 representatives of social and religious conservative groups an hour after her Rose Garden speech, senior White House staff members emphasized her family and pointed out social media posts from Republicans that did the same, including a tweet from Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, praising her devotion to “faith, family, and the U.S. Constitution.”

Douglas L. Hoelscher, the director of the White House’s office of intergovernmental affairs, urged the groups to pull out all of the stops in support of a frenzied push to speed the nomination through the Senate in the weeks before Election Day.

“We really appreciate our stakeholders already rolling up their sleeves and engaging to have their voice added to a positive echo for the president’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” Mr. Hoelscher said. “We will come back to you to help us along the way over the next month.”

He added, “We need to have your voice in the fight and we know you’re ready for that fight.”

Allied groups on the Democratic side are no less ready.

About two minutes into Mr. Trump’s introduction of Judge Barrett, the liberal group Demand Justice sent an email to its supporters urging them to “chip in immediately to put pressure on Senators to vote NO on confirming Amy Coney Barrett.”

The group pledged last week to spend $10 million to try to block the confirmation of any justice before the presidential inauguration in January, and to target vulnerable Republican senators who support such a nomination. Even before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created the Supreme Court vacancy, Demand Justice had begun a $2 million digital advertising campaign in July, trying to elevate the court as an issue in competitive states in the presidential race.

Those ads are unlikely to focus on Judge Barrett’s religious beliefs, according to Brian Fallon, the group’s executive director. He issued a statement last week saying that his group had “zero interest” in raising questions about the nominee’s Catholic faith.

On the right, the planned campaigns by Trump-allied groups to defend Judge Barrett will be expensive. The Republican National Committee said on Saturday that it was kicking off a $10 million effort, which will include a digital ad campaign and a get-out-the-vote operation that the party’s chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, said would “aggressively promote the qualifications of Judge Barrett, and use the issue to galvanize voters.”

Credit…Matt Rourke/Associated Press

America First Policies, a nonprofit group started by allies of Mr. Trump, on Saturday night announced national television, digital and direct-mail advertising buys of more than $5 million. The first television advertisement in the group’s campaign, featuring praise for Judge Barrett from the faculty at Notre Dame Law School, where she is a professor, is set to air on Tuesday during the first debate between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden.

Brian O. Walsh, the group’s president, said the $5 million was the group’s starting point, and that it was prepared to spend more if necessary. He emphasized the importance of introducing Judge Barrett to the country “on our terms.”

Privately, conservative activists concede that the push to support Judge Barrett stands little chance of affecting the outcome, since there are few senators whose votes are seen as being in play and whom conservatives believe they can effectively sway to vote yes. Few, if any, Democrats are likely to support the nomination, and a campaign targeting Republicans like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who has said she opposes filling the vacancy before the election, could backfire by further endangering her chances of winning another term and Republicans’ hopes of holding onto the Senate.

During the earlier battles over the confirmations of Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, control of the Senate was not hanging in the balance. Conservative activists said that with so much on the line now, they would have to take a more targeted and cautious approach.

For some groups, the spending on the nomination fight might have an added tax benefit, helping them fulfill requirements that they spend more than half of their annual budgets for purposes other than partisan politics. Ads about the Supreme Court could qualify as nonpartisan, even if they come across as supporting one party or the other.

The anti-tax Club for Growth and the group Catholic Vote are expected to spend money as part of the broader effort, a person familiar with the planning said.

The religious conservative group American Principles Project began a new campaign through the website, while the most active conservative group in court fights, the Judicial Crisis Network, pledged to spend $10 million on ads and a “grass-roots mobilization campaign” supporting Judge Barrett. The Judicial Crisis Network’s first ad supporting Judge Barrett’s confirmation casts Democrats who are arguing against the nomination as “extremists” who are “shamefully trying to change the facts” about quickly confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

Credit…T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

Carrie Severino, the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said her group had become more battle-hardened after the fight over Justice Kavanaugh in 2018. “We’re ready for creative minds among Democrats” to depict Judge Barrett in a negative light, she said.

On a videoconference with activists on Saturday night, Tim Phillips, the president of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be, in all candor, a big battle — we know that, given the polarization these days in politics.”

The call came as the group, funded by the political network created by the industrialist billionaires Charles and David Koch, announced “a significant national ad campaign” supporting Judge Barrett’s confirmation in 10 states in which there are competitive Senate races. The advertising will complement a push encouraging the group’s activists around the country to call their senators to urge them to support the nomination.

In the videoconference, Casey Mattox, Americans for Prosperity’s vice president for legal and judicial strategy, urged activists to act quickly “because this is going to be a pretty compressed time frame as we go through this process.”

He added, “We don’t have a lot of time with a nomination like this.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading