On February 1st, only a few
days after the President's first State of the Union, the State
Department commented on the ongoing situation with North Korea. As
CNN
reported, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert
said, "Our policy is maximum pressure with the goal of bringing
North Korea to the negotiating table, as POTUS said in the State of
the Union. We have been clear that it is our intention to resolve
this issue peacefully through dialogue. We have also been clear that
denuclearization is the only acceptable outcome, that the entire
international community is united on this point, and that it will be
achieved, one way or another."
But as Jon
Schwarz of The Intercept helpfully points out, the State of
the Union did nothing of the sort. It's almost as if the President's
opinions
have almost no effect on the policy emanating from the White House,
or the other offices of the executive branch, including the State
Dept. Yet, there's a difference between believing the President has
no effect, or only exerting himself sometimes. If the President
wants war with North Korea it will happen.
Instead of a speech which
diplomatically addressed the tension between an impoverished
dictatorship with an aging army, and one of the wealthiest, most
powerful nations, the president sought, as Schwarz deftly displays, to
portray North Korea much as President George W. Bush pictured Iraq.
Bush's intention toward Iraq was aggressive, as is the President's.
Does any of the following sound peaceful?
In President Bush's 2003 State of the
Union, when he used David Frum's infamous “Axis of Evil” to
develop support for the ill-fated and illegal invasion of Iraq, Bush
declared Iraq “the gravest danger facing America and the world,”
emphasizing not just the interest of the United States in eliminating
a threat to itself, but the beneficial aspect the United States was
ensuring for the global community.
President Trump's State of the Union
mirrored this consideration, saying North Korea, “threatens our
homeland,” and is “a menace that threatens our world.”
Both Republican President's expanded on
their foe's cruelty toward their own citizens, as if that were the
real reason they thought conflict was inevitable. If humanitarian
crisis is of concern for the current Oval Office resident, an easier,
less dangerous conflict is the Rohingya
crisis in Myanmar,
but one imagines the president expresses no concern for oppressed
Muslims, nor any actual interest in aiding the oppressed. Yet, Bush
said, “Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained,
by torturing children while their parents are made to watch,”
using, “electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on
the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and
rape.”
Trump reiterates, “We need only look
at the depraved character of the North Korean regime,” he said, “to
understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to
America.” At Trump's State of the Union he invited a North Korean
defector, and his condition
did demonstrate the brutality and disregard for human life of the
North Korean regime, but the Guardian
has pointed out, that so does the United States. Yet, the North
Korean's citizen's condition does not imply a threat to the United
States.
As the Isaac Stonefish writing in the
Atlantic
explains, North Korea treats its citizens much worse than its
visitors, and often goes to lavish expense to ensure the comfort of
foreigners, including United States citizens. And though I wouldn't
travel to North Korea , it seems incongruous for the United States to
construct a false comparison between how North Korea treats its
citizens and and how it will act towards other countries. Pyongyang,
because North Korea is a police state, is much safer than Caracas
(which has the highest murder rate in the world), yet, the State
Department recommends United State's citizens traveling to the former
should
“draft a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries
and/or power of attorney,” and “discuss a plan with loved ones
regarding care/custody of children, pets, property, belongings,
non-liquid assets (collections, artworks, etc.), funeral wishes,
etc,” while those going to Venezuela should merely,“reconsider”.
If the United States policy is to
punish countries with egregious human rights abuses (as Trump seems
to imply) with sanctions, bloody noses, or invasions, it's possible
citizens could be convinced of this course of action. All they want
to see is a consistency of action, otherwise they might suspect
protecting human rights is a smokescreen for other unpalatable
objectives. And though I'm not necessarily advocating for this
policy, it would seem reasonable to demonstrating the American
commitment to human rights by solving the easiest, least expensive
issues and escalating gradually.
In concluding his State of the Union, the President claimed,
“Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers
gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.”
Or did he say: That our enemy must be
dealt with now, because “past experience has taught us that
complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation.”?
Can you even tell the difference? Both expressions explain that waiting for the enemy to strengthen
their position, and allowing them to take the first shot is
unacceptable. So intolerable that the United States better act
first, sowing devastation where peace might have germinated.
Perhaps there is nothing more
surprising then the idea that the President will draw the United
States into a war much like his Republican predecessor's, as he
fiddles
with an occupation the United States can't
win. He repeatedly lied
about his opinion of the Iraq War, choosing whichever opinion
seemed most likely to uplift his profile at the moment.
At the same time, evidence keeps
appearing that the Trump Administration is serious about enforcing
something about North Korea. At the Munich
Security Conference Republican Sen. Jim Risch said President
Donald Trump is prepared to start a “very, very brief war. The end
of it is going to see mass casualties the likes of which the planet
has never seen. It will be of biblical proportions.”
Where is the President's red line and has he
successfully articulated it? What exactly will cause the White House
to act, and what would it do, will be next Friday's article.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment