America’s Soft War Scheme: Spreading Doubt
In a recent report, the United Nations claims that six months ago North Korea, in violation of international law, supplied banned nuclear material and ballistic components to Iran, Syria and Myanmar; and that the report’s publication was delayed because it had been blocked by China.
The leveling of such accusations against North Korea in the guise of a U.N. report must be met with a multidimensional analysis, some portions of which will be discussed here.
Why was this report published after six months of delay? The agency has published other reports without such loaded explanations; China is singled out as the country which delayed the publication of this particular report. If this were true, one might ask what ramifications it would have had for China that Beijing blocked the publication of the report. On the other hand, is China really able to exert such influence in the U.N. decision-making process, compelling countries such as the United States to go along with China’s desires? Naturally, arriving at such a deduction defies logic.
It is not a secret that the United Nations serves as a tool in the hands of the major powers and that the United States, more than anyone else, imposes its views on the international legal institutions. In other words, the exploitation of the international institutions by the United States has become a dangerous trend, and through their complacency, the other players on the international scene provide a forum for intensified American activity. The irresponsible decision of the United States to disengage from the U.N. Human Rights Council could be examined in this context.
This latest accusation brought against North Korea reinforces the perception that the United States constantly has challenged North Korea in recent years on issues of nuclear power, human rights and independence, and frequently employs these themes to level accusations against Pyongyang. But the spirit of resistance in this part of the Far East, escalating to the level of nuclear threats, has made the statesmen in Washington increasingly uncomfortable.
One week after the publication of several countries’ revelations of scandalous human rights violations in the United States, the White House found an excuse to divert public scrutiny of these violations away from American politicians and toward the axis of America’s opponents — part of its heavy-handed “soft war” arsenal — until those resisting Washington’s dominance yield to its illegitimate demands.
The Democrats’ defeat in the midterm congressional elections could be viewed as another motivation for this soft war tactic. In recent days, the statesmen in the White House, now more than ever, need to create issues for others in the international realm in order to ward off domestic troubles. Numerous rumor-spreading and accusation-creating media in the United States have become intensely active in wiping away the ruling Democrats’ heavy losses — trumpeted in the House of Representatives election results — from the memories of U.S. allies as well as domestic public opinion. Obama’s hasty trip to Asia could be very well examined in this context.
In light of European efforts to prepare for the 5+1 group meeting with Iran, Washington is attempting to reinforce an atmosphere of distrust for potential future talks by bringing up such issues, creating negativity among the participants prior to the meeting. Of course, if the participants were to enter the talks without prior reservations, then the meeting might not yield the desired results for the United States. Thus it becomes necessary to create the desired atmosphere. Washington has played out similar schemes in the past.
The Islamic Republic — aside from proposing its own discussion topics — insists on binding negotiations, and so far it has proven to be open to others’ suggestions that take into account Iran’s interests as well as address their own concerns. Meanwhile, it should not be omitted from the framework of the possible negotiations that Iran, after fueling its Bushehr nuclear reactor, has become a member of the international nuclear club. Therefore, the security of Iran must not be treated as Iran’s domestic issue only, but also as an issue with regional dimensions.
Those negotiating with Iran should realize that they need to relent on insisting that Iran stop the enrichment of uranium, since Iran considers this a red flag. So far, Iran has remained committed to the articles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been cited in the International Atomic Energy Agency reports. Negotiators should also keep in mind that Iran’s right to produce nuclear fuel has become a demand of the Iranian people and political groups, and thus is off limits to negotiation. In order to proceed with negotiations and eventually reach mutually acceptable results, the bullying disguised as serial U.N. resolutions should stop, thus facilitating and accelerating fruitful negotiations.
Accordingly, we can say that the United Nations, as the hostage of the United States, repackages that country’s illegitimate demands as legal and presents them to others, minimizing the political costs for Washington in achieving its excessive desires. But the revelation of American officials’ bullying attitude has resulted in the formation of circles of resistance around the world. Setbacks to White House strategies confirm this development.
The leveling of such accusations against North Korea in the guise of a U.N. report must be met with a multidimensional analysis, some portions of which will be discussed here.
Why was this report published after six months of delay? The agency has published other reports without such loaded explanations; China is singled out as the country which delayed the publication of this particular report. If this were true, one might ask what ramifications it would have had for China that Beijing blocked the publication of the report. On the other hand, is China really able to exert such influence in the U.N. decision-making process, compelling countries such as the United States to go along with China’s desires? Naturally, arriving at such a deduction defies logic.
It is not a secret that the United Nations serves as a tool in the hands of the major powers and that the United States, more than anyone else, imposes its views on the international legal institutions. In other words, the exploitation of the international institutions by the United States has become a dangerous trend, and through their complacency, the other players on the international scene provide a forum for intensified American activity. The irresponsible decision of the United States to disengage from the U.N. Human Rights Council could be examined in this context.
This latest accusation brought against North Korea reinforces the perception that the United States constantly has challenged North Korea in recent years on issues of nuclear power, human rights and independence, and frequently employs these themes to level accusations against Pyongyang. But the spirit of resistance in this part of the Far East, escalating to the level of nuclear threats, has made the statesmen in Washington increasingly uncomfortable.
One week after the publication of several countries’ revelations of scandalous human rights violations in the United States, the White House found an excuse to divert public scrutiny of these violations away from American politicians and toward the axis of America’s opponents — part of its heavy-handed “soft war” arsenal — until those resisting Washington’s dominance yield to its illegitimate demands.
The Democrats’ defeat in the midterm congressional elections could be viewed as another motivation for this soft war tactic. In recent days, the statesmen in the White House, now more than ever, need to create issues for others in the international realm in order to ward off domestic troubles. Numerous rumor-spreading and accusation-creating media in the United States have become intensely active in wiping away the ruling Democrats’ heavy losses — trumpeted in the House of Representatives election results — from the memories of U.S. allies as well as domestic public opinion. Obama’s hasty trip to Asia could be very well examined in this context.
In light of European efforts to prepare for the 5+1 group meeting with Iran, Washington is attempting to reinforce an atmosphere of distrust for potential future talks by bringing up such issues, creating negativity among the participants prior to the meeting. Of course, if the participants were to enter the talks without prior reservations, then the meeting might not yield the desired results for the United States. Thus it becomes necessary to create the desired atmosphere. Washington has played out similar schemes in the past.
The Islamic Republic — aside from proposing its own discussion topics — insists on binding negotiations, and so far it has proven to be open to others’ suggestions that take into account Iran’s interests as well as address their own concerns. Meanwhile, it should not be omitted from the framework of the possible negotiations that Iran, after fueling its Bushehr nuclear reactor, has become a member of the international nuclear club. Therefore, the security of Iran must not be treated as Iran’s domestic issue only, but also as an issue with regional dimensions.
Those negotiating with Iran should realize that they need to relent on insisting that Iran stop the enrichment of uranium, since Iran considers this a red flag. So far, Iran has remained committed to the articles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been cited in the International Atomic Energy Agency reports. Negotiators should also keep in mind that Iran’s right to produce nuclear fuel has become a demand of the Iranian people and political groups, and thus is off limits to negotiation. In order to proceed with negotiations and eventually reach mutually acceptable results, the bullying disguised as serial U.N. resolutions should stop, thus facilitating and accelerating fruitful negotiations.
Accordingly, we can say that the United Nations, as the hostage of the United States, repackages that country’s illegitimate demands as legal and presents them to others, minimizing the political costs for Washington in achieving its excessive desires. But the revelation of American officials’ bullying attitude has resulted in the formation of circles of resistance around the world. Setbacks to White House strategies confirm this development.