Summary: The peace negotiations with North Korea reveal much about America. The world is watching and learning, even if we remain oblivious.
“To prepare {to defend} everywhere is to prepare nowhere.”
— Sun Tzu in The Art of War.
“Brilliant Strategy Of Offering North Korea “The Libya Model”
Somehow Falls Through.”
By Caitlin Johnstone (gogue journalist).
“Three days before President Trump announced him as the new National Security Advisor, deranged mutant death walrus John Bolton appeared on Radio Free Asia and said of negotiations with North Korea, ‘I think we should insist that if this meeting is going to take place, it will be similar to discussions we had with Libya 13 or 14 years ago.’
“Bolton has been loudly and publicly advocating ‘the Libya model’ with the DPRK ever since. ‘I think we’re looking at the Libya model of 2003, 2004,’ Bolton said on Face the Nation last month, and said the same on Fox News Sunday in case anyone failed to get the message.
“Bolton never bothered to refine his message by saying, for example, ‘Without the part where we betray and invade them and get their leader mutilated to death in the streets.’ He just said they’re doing Libya again.
“This was what John Bolton was saying before he was hired, and this was what John Bolton continued to say after he was hired. This was what John Bolton was hired to do. He was hired to sabotage peace and facilitate death and destruction. That is what he does. That is what he is for. Can openers open cans, John Bolton starts wars. You don’t buy a can opener to rotate your tires, and you don’t hire John Bolton to facilitate peace. …
“’You know, there were some talk about the Libya model last week,’ Vice President Pence told Fox News on Saturday. ‘And you know, as the president made clear, you know, this will only end like the Libya model ended if Kim Jong-un doesn’t make a deal.’ …but that is because he is a fake plastic doll manufactured by Raytheon. …”
———————————
Anthropologist Maximilian Forte gives us a broader context for these events. This is an excerpt from his long and detailed analysis.
“North Korea: The Undaunted State Tests the Limits of Empire.“
“…Americans seem to know little and respect less about actual diplomacy. Today the US working definition of ‘diplomacy’ expands it to a default category: anything that is not massively explosive ‘shock and awe’ warfare must be diplomacy. Thus, absurdly, the US government speaks of sanctions designed to ‘strangle’ the North Korean economy and ‘kick it in the gut’ (as the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has repeatedly stated), sanctions that do immense damage to the welfare of ordinary North Koreans, an act of massive collective punishment – it’s all ‘diplomacy’.
“If no US troops pull triggers or push buttons, then that’s all that is needed for diplomacy to exist. That is quite wrong. …
“While silence from North Korea prevailed for weeks since the first announcement of the chance for a meeting between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, the Americans instead could not seem to shut up even for a moment, even when it was absolutely necessary to really shut up. As if to confirm stereotypes of Americans that many of us outside the US share, any moment of silence had to be squeezed out by incessant American chatter. What emerged was an American soliloquy on the world stage, and it was embarrassing and cringe-worthy at the best of times.
- “So American leaders dreamt aloud about the prospects of winning a Nobel prize (when the initiative was purely Korean – and was even announced by the South Korean foreign minister on the lawn of the White House, without any US official next to him).
- “Then the Americans praised themselves for having been so tough on North Korea, because such statements could never humiliate anyone – not anyone whose humanity was not even recognized.
- “On top of that, US leaders bellowed they would offer no concessions, even as North Korea took several concrete steps to advance peace.
- “The only reason Trump would meet with Kim is that North Korea had developed advanced nuclear weapons, and the US knew that – Trump instantly agreeing to a summit was the highest confirmation that what North Korea had said about its weapons was in fact true all along, and the US was in direct peril.
- “The North Koreans released US prisoners, and the US side called them ‘hostages’ – because ‘prisoners’ only exist in ‘civilized’ nations like the US, whereas in the dark holes of the world, where always innocent Americans never commit any crimes, any act of detention is ‘hostage-taking’. …
“Still not knowing when it was time to shut the hell up, American officials then decided to take matters over the top: they demanded immediate and irreversible denuclearization (the first part is unrealistic, and the second is absolutely impossible). Or else. Then the US president rushed to claim that North Korea had in fact accepted denuclearization, and thus tacitly obeyed the ‘or else’ part as well.
“The US decided to paint a picture for North Koreans of what their future would look like if they did not agree to all US demands (a stance that rendered negotiations pointless): the only future they could dream of was becoming another Libya. Perhaps deliberately, but John Bolton (national security adviser) and vice-president Mike Pence completely sabotaged any remaining chance for dialogue – Trump trying to claw back some of the remarks was half-hearted and made matters worse, as he too threatened a Libyan outcome.
“What does the American government know about diplomacy, when they don’t even know when it’s time to shut up? These are people accustomed to dancing in the end zones of other countries. Their ‘respect’ for international agreements, and thus international law, is manifested in how they tear up those agreements and walk away, or sign the agreements but never send them to Congress for ratification, or ignore the verdicts of the International Court of Justice.
“People who want peace show some seriousness of purpose, and the US shows no serious interest in peace. At some point very dangerous, very foolish assumptions infected official thinking in Washington:
- that peace is for the weak;
- that talking legitimates an opponent and raises his status (from animal to human); and,
- that negotiations mean that one party is totally surrendering.
———————————
Conclusions
America wields great power, and does so with increasing belligerence. After WWII we led the creation of a diplomacy-based world. After 9/11 Bush Jr – then Obama – tore that down to one relying on force. We use economic sanctions, threats of military force, and frequent military attacks (from cruise missiles up to invasion and occupations).
This can’t end well for us. Eventually someone will strike back, shattering our delusion of invulnerability. But no matter what the ending, we are the citizens of America and bear responsibility for its deeds until then.
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about grand strategy, about North Korea, and especially these…
- Is America a destabilizing force in the world?
- The Obama Doctrine: we will attack and destroy all non-nuclear rivals.
- Look at America’s grand strategy. Why do we believe this nonsense?
- The “global commons” belongs to the world. Should America control it?
- Why is America militarizing, becoming a 21stC Prussia?
- We’ve attacked yet another nation. How long until somebody hits back?
To learn more about American “diplomacy”
Washington Rules:
America’s Path to Permanent War
by Andrew Bacevich (Wikipedia).
“Andrew J. Bacevich’s bestseller challenges the conventional wisdom that American security requires the United States (and us alone) to maintain a permanent armed presence around the globe, to prepare our forces for military operations in far-flung regions, and to be ready to intervene anywhere at any time. Adopted by administrations on both sides of the political spectrum during the past half century, this Washington consensus on national security has become foreign policy gospel when, according to Bacevich, it has outlasted its usefulness.
“With vivid, incisive analysis, Bacevich assails and exposes the preconceptions, biases, and habits that underlie this pervasive faith in military might, especially the notion that overwhelming superiority will oblige others to accommodate America’s needs and desires – whether for cheap oil, cheap credit, or cheap consumer goods. Instead, Bacevich argues that we must reconsider the principles which shape American policy in the world and acknowledge that fixing Afghanistan should not take precedence over fixing Detroit. As we enter a period when our militarism has become both unaffordable and increasingly dangerous, replacing this Washington consensus is crucial to America’s future and may yet offer the key to the country’s salvation.”
