|
25 December 2010 By Stephen
Lendman Washington is a world class
menace, waging imperial wars for global dominance
called peace, stability and democracy. In the run-up
to the 1950 Korean War, Truman used South Korea to
goad Pyongyang into a conflict it didn't want. Nor
does it now, but events may spiral out of control
unless cooler heads prevail. Last March, the latest
confrontation began when North Korea was falsely
blamed for sinking a South Korean ship. At the time,
evidence suggested a false flag, manufactured to blame
Pyongyang. Then on November 23, US media
reports said North Korea incited the gravest incident
since the July 1953 armistice. Analysts called it a
deliberate provocation, even though South Korean
forces fired first, goaded by the Obama administration
for what Pyongyang, with good reason, called a
rehearsal for invasion. Decades of sanctions crippled its
economy. Ten years under Bush/Obama were intimidating.
South Korea's right-wing Lee Myung-bak Grand National
Party replaced Uri Party's Roh Moo-hyun's Sunshine
Policy, initiating hostile, provocative relations. Lee rescinded his cooperative
economic agreements, cancelled emergency
communications between both sides to avoid possible
conflict, stopped family reunions, ended the North's
Mt. Kumgang tourist operations, and closed the
North-South railroad benefitting both sides, keeping
only a Kaesong, North Korea industrial park
operating. He also violated a 2004 agreement
to halt propaganda campaigns, sending 400,000
disinformation leaflets north on balloons. Annual
South Korean/US military exercises heighten tensions,
especially with extra Washington/Seoul saber rattling.
Pyongyang warned about current ones, calling them
"reckless military provocations (in) our maritime
territory." Promising another response, Reuters, on
December 20, said: "North Korea stepped back from
confrontation over 'reckless' military drills by the
South on Monday and reportedly issued a new offer on
nuclear inspections, drawing a cautious response from
Seoul and Washington," preferring confrontation to
diplomacy. On December 19, an emergency
Security Council meeting failed to reach consensus
urging peninsula calm with language condemning only
Pyongyang. China and Russia want both sides blamed.
They also urge reducing tensions and above all
avoiding conflict. Reuters said US, British and
French delegations rejected Russia's proposal for a UN
envoy mission to Seoul and Pyongyang, seeking "maximum
restraint." On December 21, Al Jazeera said
Security Council negotiations "ended in an impasse,
with Russia and China resisting an explicit
condemnation of North Korea for last month's attack."
As a result, a planned December 20 meeting was
cancelled. Korea Policy Institute analyst
Christine Ahn believes "the threat of war with North
Korea is very real." If so, Washington and Seoul will
provoke it, not Pyongyang, with nothing strategic to
gain. Moreover, it would "draw in both the United
States, and potentially China, into a larger conflict
that nobody wants....I think that (both US and South
Korean) leaders are playing a very dangerous game that
could really escalate into a full-blown war." No one in the region wants one.
With America embroiled in two unwinnable conflicts,
it's hard imagining Washington does either. No matter.
Given Obama's reckless agenda, no possibility can be
ruled out. Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly
Churkin, said: "Now we have a situation of very
serious political tension and no game plan on the
diplomatic side." He also warned that "within hours
there may be a serious aggravation of tensions, a
serious conflict for that matter." A statement from Wang Min,
China's ambassador and permanent UN representative
said: "We strongly appeal (for)
relevant parties to exercise maximum restraint, act in
a responsible manner and avoid increas(ing)
tensions....Calm rather than tension, dialogue rather
than confrontation, peace rather than warfare, this is
the strong aspiration and voice of the peoples from
both sides of the Peninsula and the international
community." He also called the situation
"perilous." Washington and Seoul were unmoved, blaming
Pyongyang unfairly. They also participated jointly in
South Korea's provocative December 20 military
exercises. Held on Yeonpyeong Island, they
included 90 minutes of live artillery fire with US
trainers and observers present. Local residents stayed
in bunkers in case Pyongyang retaliated. South Korean
officials went on emergency standby. Washington and
Seoul's military were on high alert. Provocative
overhead flights threated attack. Warships patrolled
the Yellow Sea near the disputed Northern Limited
Line, unilaterally imposed by Washington in 1953, one
of many thorns affecting relations. Earlier, South Korea's Defense
Minister, Kim Kwan-jin, said Pyongyang's artillery
batteries would be bombed if its territory again was
shelled. Instead of cooling tensions, Seoul and
Washington exploit them to the fullest, including
inflammatory media reports condemning the North as
aggressor, the South a victim, and America as neutral
arbiter. Nonetheless, Pyongyang showed
restraint, cooling tensions that heightened fears
along one of the world's most heavily fortified
frontiers. Its official KCNA news agency said: "The revolutionary armed forces
of the DPRK did not feel any need to retaliate against
every despicable military provocation," calling the
drills "childish play with fire." In a show of good faith,
Pyongyang also agreed to let UN inspectors return to
its Yongbyon nuclear complex, offered to sell its
12,000 fuel rods to another country, and proposed
creating a joint military commission and hotline with
Seoul and Washington to avoid future conflict. Hardly
proposals from a belligerent, yet they were quickly
dismissed, US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley
saying: "We've seen a string of broken
promises by North Korea going back many, many years.
We'll be guided by what North Korea does, not (what)
it might do under certain circumstances." Unmentioned was Washington half
century of broken promises, intimidation, threats,
isolation, and economic aggression against Pyongyang
to force its adoption of a market oriented economy
dominated by US capital. Resistance draws ire and
provocations that could escalate to war, no matter the
risks of pitting a potential Pyongyang/Beijing/Moscow
alliance against Washington and Seoul. Ignored also was America's
refusal to resume six-party talks to ease tensions and
avoid what no one, except perhaps Washington, may
want. It includes greater confrontation with China,
its main economic rival that, if unchecked, will
surpass the US in the current century as the world's
dominant economy. A potential showdown looms to
prevent it - the unthinkable, another Asian land war
against a super-power far stronger than Vietnam and a
land mass the size of America. Imperial America also threatens Russia, its main military rival with a near-matching nuclear capability and strength to strike globally if attacked. Pentagon strategists regard Afghanistan as strategically crucial to project military power against Russia, China, Iran, and other oil-rich Eurasian states, including Middle East ones. Russia and China know the stakes - that Washington wants unchallengeable military power to assure control of global resources, as well as "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming strength to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including preemptively with nuclear weapons. As a result, nuclear war by miscalculation or design remains as conceivable under Obama as Bush - a reckless possibility for "mutually assured destruction." During the Cold War, it was prevented. The two Koreas, are just pawns in this reckless game for dominance that potentially could consume everyone, including an American aggressor. After nearly 60 years of confrontation and hostility, any nation would feel paranoid. More recently, Pyongyang recalls that, in 2003, George Bush, told Chinese President Jiang Zemin that if North Korea's nuclear issue wasn't resolved peacefully (meaning entirely abandoned for commercial use) he'd "have to consider a military strike." The possibility remains, especially with Obama as belligerent as Bush. He also rejects diplomatic efforts to cool tensions and resolve differences peacefully. Instead, US policy remains aggressive and confrontational, risking nuclear war, an unthinkable alternative anywhere, but design or miscalculation may cause it. Targeting North Korea A charter "axis of evil" member, imperial America targets North Korea, perhaps more aggressively than earlier with help from the International Criminal Court (ICC). On December 7, Washington Post writer John Pomfret headlined, "Court looks into alleged war crimes by N. Korea," saying: The ICC "launched a preliminary investigation into allegations that North Korean forces committed war crimes when they shelled civilian areas in South Korea and allegedly sank a South Korean warship, the court announced Monday." Chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said complaints prompted its action, notably from South Korea. In fact, the alleged ship sinking was a red herring, and Seoul's belligerence precipitated Pyongyang's response, shelling military, not civilian, targets on Yeonpyeong Island, eight miles from its coast. Instead of holding responsible parties culpable for crimes against humanity, war crimes, illegal aggression and genocide, the ICC serves US, Western, and Israeli interests, guilty of enough criminality to demand prosecution for decades. Instead, victims, not aggressors are charged and convicted. Pyongyang's leaders may be next if they travel abroad and become vulnerable. The rule of might over right prevails, justice always denied. A Final Comment For decades, Israel has been a regional bully and global menace, more proof from Amos Harel's December 20 Haaretz article headlined, "IDF to deploy super-armored tanks along Gaza border," saying: Equipped with "active armor (Windbreaker) protection, they'll deploy in January "following assessments that the threat of anti-tank missile attacks in the area is on the rise. (Israeli) security sources (claim Gazan) militants upgraded their anti-tank missile capabilities. (Windbreaker) neutraliz(es) advanced anti-tank missiles at different ranges." In fact, Palestinians don't initiate attacks. In self-defense, they occasionally respond legally to Israeli aggression. On December 18, Reuters reported a recent incident involving Israeli air strikes killing five Gazans. Israel called them "terror operatives who were preparing to launch rockets toward Israeli territory." They're always freedom fighters or civilians. On December 21, Al Jazeera headlined, "Israeli fighter jets attack Gaza," saying: Two Palestinians were wounded according to witnesses. "The overnight raids came after the Israeli army accused Palestinian fighters of firing nine mortar shells into southern Israel, which fell on open ground and caused no deaths." Seven raids were conducted against Khan Younis and northern Gaza locations, "targeting the Jabailya refugee camp and the towns of Beit Lahya, Beit Hanoun and Zeitoun." No casualties were reported, but often civilians are killed or wounded. A tunnel near Rafah was also attacked, again with no casualties. Israel, in fact, reported that throughout 2010, only around 200 rockets or shells were fired, causing little damage and few casualties. In contrast, Israel launches regular air and ground attacks, destroying non-military targets, targeting civilians, and causing frequent deaths and injuries, including Gazan farmers, workers and fishermen. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, homes and communities are assaulted, property destroyed, and civilians attacked, including women and children. Virtually daily, Israel violates international law with impunity. Western leaders and ICC justices stay silent despite decades of criminal acts. Silence makes them complicit. Instead, might rules over right. Victims, not aggressors, are blamed, even 1.5 million Gazans suffocating lawlessly under siege since June 2007. They're denied enough food, medicine, electricity, fuel and other essentials to survive. In mid-2010, Israel cut wheat and animal feed let in by 25%, making conditions more dire. As a result, Gazans' fundamental human rights, dignity, and right to life are compromised. No one cares enough to act, nor in Asia where nuclear war might erupt unless global pressure prevents it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/. |
Add Comments