What's Left
August 15, 2003
We don't do peace
By Stephen Gowans
Damn North Koreans. They're at it again, rigidly making demands for,
ugh!, peace.
"North Korea revived its long standing demand for a non-aggression
treaty and diplomatic relations with Washington," revealed The New
York Times. (1)
Habitually termed bizarre, unpredictable, and isolationist, North
Korea is often portrayed as a menacing threat, its leaders consumed by
a death wish to send a warhead hurtling toward Hawaii. But a country
that has a long-standing demand for a non-aggression treaty and
diplomatic relations can hardly be considered a threat to the safety
of Americans. A threat to the idea that free trade and free markets
dominated by US capital must spread to all corners of the globe, North
Korea included -- or that Washington is global boss -- is quite
another matter.
It seems Kim Jong Il, the country's leader, just doesn't get it. His
demand for peace, the newspaper of record was compelled to add, shows
a "rigidity analysts said represented [Pyongyang's] customary leverage
from a weak position." (2)
Translation: The United States doesn't negotiate. It issues demands,
and they're to be acceded to, post haste. Didn't Kim get the memo?
The US demand, in case you missed it, is for North Korea to surrender
its quaint and outmoded ideas about (a) sovereignty, (b) socialism,
and (c) the right to self-defense.
The US demand in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, the demonized former
leader of a fractured Yugoslavia, was to surrender his quaint and
outmoded ideas about (a) sovereignty, (b) socialism, and (c) the right
to self-defense.
He didn't. So he now languishes in a former Nazi prison at The Hague,
a warning to slow-learners, like Kim.
And Saddam.
Saddam didn't learn, either. Clinging to his quaint and outmoded ideas
about (a) sovereignty, (b) Arab nationalism, and (c) the right to
self-defense, he's paid the price. He's on the run, with a bounty on
his head.
Seems to be a pattern.
To get with the program, Kim Jong Il must step down; the country's
resources, markets, land and labor must be turned over to US
businesses and investors; and Pyongyang must abandon any idea of
developing nuclear weapons to deter Washington's efforts to secure its
first two demands.
That's why a non-aggression pact, which would ease tensions, is not in
the cards. "We won't do non-aggression pacts or treaties, things of
that nature," (3) declared US Secretary of State Colin Powell,
rigidly.
Reporters never ask, Why not? And they never ask questions like:
"Didn't Powell just say, 'We don't do peace'?"
Washington is willing to give Pyongyang a written assurance, but it's
not clear what it's ready to give an assurance of. Not that bombs,
stamped Made in the USA, won't level every building over one story, as
they did 50 years ago, during the Korean War.
Incidentally, that war has never been officially declared over,
something Washington has insisted on, rigidly.
"The administration," The New York Times revealed "has already ruled
out any language that would assure the North that there would never be
a pre-emptive attack." (4)
That's about the 51st threat in a long string North Koreans are
shitting their drawers over, waiting for the first missile to be let
loose from a US ship lurking somewhere off the coast.
There are 37,000 US troops on, or near, the North Korean border. Many
more are stationed in nearby Japan. Bombers have been moved to within
striking distance, and the 7th Fleet, chock-a-block with nukes, waits
menacingly in the Sea of Japan.
If that isn't provocation enough, there have been plenty of others:
Being called a part of an axis of evil; being warned to draw the
appropriate lesson from Iraq (5); turning up on a list of countries
whose regimes are scheduled for change (6); being included in a list
of countries the US has targeted for a possible nuclear strike; the
leaking of US battle plans to US News and World Report. (7)
And the latest: US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is said to be
eager to see talks with the embattled country fail because that would
"make it easier to rally support from other countries for more
economic and political pressure and, eventually, military
confrontation." (8)
The weak will be picked off, one by one, militarily.
You don't hear much about Libya these days. That's because the US, and
its faithful junior, the UK, have other fish to fry. But sit tight.
Libya's day is coming.
Khadaffi, you see, has the same problem Kim has, and Milosevic and
Saddam had. They either didn't get the memo, or they didn't read it.
Libya still clings to ideas that make the trustees of US imperialism -
that is, Washington's movers and shakers -- see red: Sovereignty;
nationalism; the right to self-defense.
Just the other day, the oil rich country bowed to UN demands on the
Lockerbie affair, taking the final step to fulfill conditions the
world body established for the lifting of sanctions.
But what Libya didn't do was renounce its right to develop weapons to
defend itself from attack by countries that might have a track record
in outraging the sovereignty of the unwilling in pursuit of, say, oil
and commercial advantage.
So it is that Washington has declared, rigidly, that sanctions and
penalties stretching back 24 years will be maintained, until Libya
takes "many more steps, particularly in the area of weapons programs."
(9) Washington likes its victims to disarm before the Pentagon sets
jackboots to marching. It's so much easier, that way.
In case you thought these foreign adventures don't have a lot to do
with US commercial advantage, you might want to pore over another in a
series of fascinating tidbits that always seem to be springing from
The New York Times.
Yesterday we learned that "The Bush administration has been reluctant
to give the United Nations more than minimal authority in the
reconstruction of Iraq." (10)
Why?
Because the administration believes "France, Germany, Russia and other
countries demanding such a role are actually doing so to try to get
more contracts and economic benefits for themselves." (11)
Translation: "***** off you vultures. We invaded the country. We get
the contracts and economic benefits. Go find your own country to
invade."
Middle-weight imperialists should keep in mind, however, that
Washington, the super heavyweight, already has dibs on Cuba, Syria,
Iran, and, oh yes, a North Korea that keeps rigidly insisting on
peace.
***
1. "Beijing to Host North Korea Talks," The New York Times, August 14,
2003.
2. Ibid.
3. "U.S. Weighs Reward if North Korea Scraps Nuclear Arms," The New
York Times, August 13, 2003.
4. "Beijing to Host North Korea Talks"
5. U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international
security, John Bolton, warned Pyongyang to "draw the appropriate
lesson from Iraq." "U.S. Tells Iran, Syria, N. Korea 'Learn from
Iraq," Reuters, April 9, 2003.
6. "Iran to be US next target: CIA report," Pak Tribune (Online) March
24, 2003.
7. The news magazine says the Pentagon has drawn up a number of plans
to attack North Korea, the latest being Plan 5030.
"One scenario in the draft [of the plan] involves flying RC-135
surveillance flights even closer to North Korean airspace, forcing
Pyongyang to scramble aircraft and burn scarce jet fuel. Another
option: U.S. commanders might stage a weeks-long surprise military
exercise, designed to force North Koreans to head for bunkers and
deplete valuable stores of food, water, and other resources. The
current draft of 5030 also calls for the Pentagon to pursue a range of
tactical operations that are not traditionally included in war plans,
such as disrupting financial networks and sowing disinformation."
"Pentagon Plan 5030, a new blueprint for facing down North Korea," US
News and World Report, July 21, 2003.
8. "U.S. Weighs Reward if North Korea Scraps Nuclear Arms," The New
York Times, August 13, 2003.
9. "Libya Set to Take Responsibility for Pan Am Blast, Envoys Say,"
The New York Times, August 13, 2003.
"An administration official," noted the The New York Times, on August
15, 2003 ("U.S. Will Keep Penalties Against Libya, Officials Say"),
said "hard-liners in the State and Defense Departments sought to
oppose the lifting of United Nations sanctions even if Libya met the
conditions set." In the end, the hard-liners backed down, when it was
agreed that "the United States would not only keep its own sanctions
in effect but would also try to persuade other nations to maintain
sanctions on Libya."
"In the past, the United states has said it would consider removing
American sanctions only after United Nations sanctions were lifted."
"Asked when American sanctions would be lifted, an administration
said, 'It's basically not going to happen.'"
10. "U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation," The
New York Times, August 14, 2003.
11. Ibid.
________
You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.
fwd//Starman
.
|
