War Over Diplomacy Drives US Foreign Policy
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Tensions on the Korean peninsula escalated further after US UN envoy Nikki Haley accused Pyongyang of “nuclear aggression” – following its latest ballistic missile test, showing its capability advanced considerably.
Washington wants North Korea isolated, trade by other nations suspended, including an oil embargo.
“China can do this on its own, or we can take the oil situation into our own hands,” Haley warned – possible only by blockading the country, an act of war.
China and Russia are strongly opposed to isolating North Korea and cutting off its access to oil imports, both countries unwilling to sever ties with the DPRK or crush its economy.
Is the Trump administration heading inevitably toward war? Will its risk a nuclear confrontation on the Korean peninsula?
At a Thursday press briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing and Moscow agree on constructive initiatives aimed at resolving the crisis peacefully – urging world community support to avoid catastrophic war.
Pyongyang “fully understand(s) the importance of initiatives aimed at de-escalating the conflict, which were proposed by China and Russia,” he added.
Separately, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned against severing ties with the DPRK. Sergey Lavrov blasted Washington saying, the Trump administration “ha(s) done everything on purpose to make
Kim Jong-un lose control and make another desperate move.”
“The Americans need to explain to us all what they are actually up to. If they seek a pretext to destroy North Korea, they should openly say so and the US leadership should confirm it. Then we would decide how to respond.”
Russia and China strongly oppose a military confrontation. Lavrov said sanction pressure exhausted itself.
It’s been ineffective and counterproductive, hardening North Korean resistance, encouraging its leadership to advance the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities – its most effective deterrent against feared US aggression.
Separately, Thursday US media reports by the New York Times, Washington Post and Vanity Fair indicated Rex Tillerson may be ousted from the State Department in weeks – CIA director Mike Pompeo to replace him, neocon GOP Senator Tom Cotton to become new Langley chief.
Win Without War.org director Stephen Miles responded to the possible shift, saying Trump’s actions so far show he favors “chaos theory” over responsible governance.
He favors belligerence over diplomacy. His agenda makes war on North Korea and Iran more likely.
Cotton supports “military action against Iran and regime change in Tehran, supports the use of torture, called for journalists to be arrested and prosecuted for reporting stories he disagrees with, and peddles false claims like Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks,” said Miles.
Pompeo is just as worrisome. He’s “been a proponent of torture, denied climate science, promoted anti-Muslim views, opposed the Iran nuclear deal, and is currently working with other Trump administration officials to build a case for war against Iran,” Miles added – perhaps against North Korea as well.
Pompeo at State with Cotton at Langley comprise a toxic mix, both figures “war-hungry ideologues,” their agenda recklessly for greater warmaking than already.
With them in charge of two key administration agencies, along with hawkish administration and Pentagon generals, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) Doomsday Clock may move closer to midnight.
Last year, BAS said “(t)he probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon. That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms.”
Conditions today are more perilous than a year ago. Is unthinkable nuclear war inevitable?
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at firstname.lastname@example.org.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”