The
U.S. habitually forces other nations to bend to its will by using
diplomatic arm-twisting, economic warfare or brute military force.
The U.S. has been using all three against North Korea since the
Korean War, and since the regime of Clinton and running through Bush
the Younger, Obama, and now Trump The Narcissist, the U.S. has been
trying to reverse North Korea's nuclear weapons development,
presumably with the addition of cyberwarfare in the arsenal of U.S.
weaponry.
[1]
But
North Korea is proving a tough nut for the U.S. to crack.
The
country has great internal cohesion, unlike easy targets of U.S.
coups like Chile in 1973, Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, or Ukraine
in 2014, among other examples. Nor can the U.S. simply invade, as it
did the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 19 83, Panama in 1989,
Haiti and Nicaragua in the early 20th century, Cuba and the
Philippines circa
1898
and so on.
The
internal cohesion of NK is based on the extreme totalitarianism of
the regime, and the effective brainwashing of the populace, backed by
coercion. (Actually most nations rely on brainwashing through
propaganda and indoctrination in the school system backed by
coercion. That description certainly fits the U.S.) The
impracticality of invasion stems from the fact that NK has nuclear
weapons, and a conventional military that in any event would inflict
significant casualties on a U.S. invasion force- something U.S.
ruling elites are deathly afraid of, for good reasons.
Donald
Trump, a lifelong bully, apparently thinks he can intimidate the
North Koreans. That is amazingly obtuse. It is perfectly obvious that
the North Koreans are extremely tough and very hard. Trump has been
issuing verbal threats for several weeks, vowing to "take care
of the problem" of North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile
programs. His Secretary of State, Rex "Mr. ExxonMobil"
Tillerson, has echoed the threats, saying that "all options are
on the table," U.S.-gangsterspeak for You Better Be Afraid We
Will Attack You With Our Military.
Currently
Trump is rushing a carrier battle group at North Korea. NK's response
has been a threat to launch a preemptive
nuclear attack.
In other words, if they think
the
U.S. is going to attack them, they will launch.
Whether
or not that's a bluff, it is highly reckless of the Trump regime to
test it.
A
better tact would be to accept the reality that war with North Korea
is simply insane, and negotiate. For one thing, there is no practical
way to stop the North from destroying South Korea's capital and
economic heart, Seoul, in a matter of hours with the 10,000 artillery
pieces embedded in a mountain just over the border. Except maybe by
hydrogen bombing the mountain, which would release vast quantites of
radioactive fallout over South Korea and Japan and China and ineed
the whole region (as well as float over the entire globe, including
the U.S.). And of course the U.S. would simultaneously have to "take
out" the North's nuclear arsenal- except that the U.S. does not
know where all of it is hidden.
China
has been advocating negotiations. True, previous negotiations
"failed." That is, they produced temporary (or no) results.
The first deal, cut by Clinton, might have worked if the U.S. hadn't
double-crossed the North on a promise to build civilian nuclear power
plants. (The U.S. said, Oh, Japan is supposed to build those. Japan
never did, so the North surreptitiously began nuclear weapons work
again.) But it did halt the North's development of nuclear weaponry
for a few years. And yes, NK basically has practiced a policy of
diplomatic extortion, using its nuclear arsenal as threat.
Realistically one shouldn't expect the North to ever give up that
arsenal, as without it it has no leverage. At best, perhaps a halt to
its further development could be negotiated.
To
be sure, the dynastic Kim regime is fanatical and unreasonable, but
not wholly irrational. One good starting point for negotiations would
be to propose
a formal end to the Korean War by treaty.
(There is actually just a truce in place.) However, the U.S. hates
compromising with an adversary, especially one perceived as weak.
This is why the U.S. prolonged the Vietnam War for so long, seeking
"victory" (by pummelling the Vietnamese into submission).
(Lyndon Johnson contemptuously likened North Vietnam to "a
dwarf with a penknife" threatening
the U.S.! There's
the mentality you're dealing with.)
North
Korea feels genuinely threatened by the U.S. Increasing that threat
only increases the North's belligerence and determination to create a
nuclear deterrent that can destroy not only U.S. bases in the Far
East, but attack the continental U.S. The only strategy that has a
chance to stop the development of North Korean ICBMs is negotiation
and compromise, as distasteful as that is.
Nor
should Trump count on China to bail out the U.S. China has expressed
its strong objection to the THAAD anti-missile system the U.S. is
preparing to deploy in South Korea, seeing it as neutralizing China's
own missiles. Nor do they want to undermine the North Korea regime or
bring it to its knees. It fears in that event that the South would
take over the North, bring a U.S. client up to China's doorstep,
and/or creating a flood of North Korean refugees into China (on top
of the flow that already exists). (China has cancelled North Korean
coal exports to China for this year, to express displeasure with
North Korean missile tests. Oddly, it has been reported that
bilateral trade has increased
despite
this. A real blow would be if China cut off oil shipments to the
North. That would surely cripple the North's military. There is no
indication China intends to go that far.)
But
between a U.S. president who is ignorant, bombastic, blustering,
narcissistic, and accustomed to getting his way through intimidation
and bullying, and a U.S. military that is ascendant in the foreign
policy arena (Trump has put generals in charge of the Pentagon and
National Security Council, and diminished the role of the State
Department, even proposing to cut its budget by 28%), it is hard to
be optimistic about an intelligent strategy being adopted as U.S.
policy. Not that the military necessarily wants war, but that after
all is all they know how to do.
1]
Overtly and covertly, the U.S. has used military and terroristic
violence thousands of times in its history. Examples of economic
warfare include against Cuba starting in 1959; against Chile from
1970 to 1973, when Nixon gave CIA secret police chief Richard Helms
orders to "make the economy scream" to destabilize that
country and overthrow elected socialist president Salvador Allende;
against Iran since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979;
Why the hell is this man laughing?
No comments:
Post a Comment