And Then There Was One
by Don Bacon "Axis of evil" was a term coined by United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 in order to describe governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in his speech. Of course, they weren't an axis, that is they weren't an alliance, at all; in fact two of them, Iraq and Iran, had fought a bloody war with the United States supporting Iraq. Anyhow, it looks like the "axis" is down to one. The first to go was Iraq, with the United States-led invasion on March 20, 2003 by a multinational coalition composed of U.S. and U.K. troops supported by smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland, and other nations. At the start of the war, U.S. officials argued that Iraq and its alleged possession and further pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to the security and interests of the United States, Europe and the other nations of the Middle East. Also Iraq was linked with terrorism. However the links to terrorism were found to be false, and weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD. And then North Korea. The Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea on October 21, 1994 in Geneva agreed that:
Then along came Bush. South Korea was told in March 2001 that President Bush and Secretary Powell would not continue the talks with North Korea representatives on their nuclear program that were begun the year before by President Clinton and Secretary Albright. Next, Bush called the DPRK a part of the axis of evil in his 2002 State of the Union Address. So, thanks to Bush, North Korea got to work. Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee February 4, 2003 that the administration
received a National Intelligence Estimate in June 2002 stating that
North Korea “had engaged in at least [a research and development]
project for highly enriched uranium.” He also stated that intelligence
received the next month, however, indicated that North Korea was
acquiring “many more [centrifuges] than was originally thought,”
adding that a September 2002 intelligence memorandum said that North
Korea “had embarked on a production program.” A November 2002 CIA report to Congress says North Korea “is constructing a [uranium-enrichment] plant that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear weapons a year when fully operational.” The Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony that the uranium-enrichment program could produce fissile material in “probably…months and not years.” This was followed by years of disengagement with North Korea and its nuclear program. In 2003 North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and it subsequently acted belligerently, reactivating its nuclear power facilities and firing a land-to-ship missile into the sea between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. It also conducted an underground nuclear explosive test on October 16, 2006. Then came a shocker. On June 26th the Bush administration asked Congress" to de-list North Korea from America's "terrorist watch list, and suspended sanctions on North Korea that are tied to the "Trading with Enemies Act." This puts US-North Korea relations on a whole new track. Chalk it up as a success for Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian & Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill, who has been attacked by former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton for the last year. President
Bush: "North Korea pledged to declare its nuclear activity.
With today's declaration, North Korea has begun describing its plutonium-related
activities. It's also provided other documents related to its nuclear
programs going back to 1986. It has promised access to the reactor
core and waste facilities at Yongbyon, as well as personnel related
to its nuclear program. All this information will be essential to
verifying that North Korea is ending its nuclear programs and activities. "The six-party talks are based on a principle of 'action for action.' So in keeping with the existing six-party agreements, the United States is responding to North Korea's actions with two actions of our own: "First, I'm issuing a proclamation that lifts the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea. "And secondly, I am notifying Congress of my intent to rescind North Korea's designation as a state sponsor of terror . . .Multilateral diplomacy is the best way to peacefully solve the nuclear issue with North Korea. "They said they're going to destroy parts of their plant in Yongbyon. That's a very positive step – after all, it's the plant that made plutonium. "Now, as I mentioned in my statement, there's a lot more verification that needs to be done. I mentioned our concerns about [uranium] enrichment. We expect the North Korean regime to be forthcoming about their programs." Catch the new Bush:
So it looks like two down. But what about the third and last "Axis" member, Iran? Do they get the attack like Iraq, or do they get the concern and expectations like North Korea? (Hint: They've got oil and gas, like Iraq, and North Korea doesn't.) Iran has been subjected to a series of United Nations sanctions for its refusal to cease enriching uranium, as North Korea is doing, and the United States refuses to talk to Iran. This is despite
the fact that Iran, a Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Pact signatory, is in full compliance with
the NPT which states: In other words, Iran, like any NPT signatory, is not only allowed but encouraged to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran is in full compliance with the NPT. In February of this year, the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated:
Despite these affirmations Iran has been threatened with attack by Israel. Iran has said that it would react violently if attacked. As a result, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon criticized – Iran. Talk about
the double standards at the United Nations, reports Kaveh
L Afrasiabi of Asia Times. Whereas UN secretary general
Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly condemned Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's
rhetoric against Israel, expressing "shock and dismay,"
he has remained ominously, and inexcusably, silent about the blatant
Israeli threats of military attacks on Iran, thus undermining the
world's confidence in his ability to steer the global community
clear of yet another major war in the Middle East caldron. Afrasiabi continues: Having turned a blind eye to Iran's formal protest at the UN regarding Israel's explicit threats, Ban may need to revisit his own statement of June 7, 2007, "The secretary general points out that all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." In light of new media disclosures about Israel's advanced plans to launch a major air offensive against Iran's nuclear installations, bound to inflict serious civilian casualties and trigger the volatile region into a "fireball," to paraphrase the reaction of the head of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammad ElBaradei, who has stated categorically that he would resign immediately if Iran is attacked, Ban is borderline on the verge of skirting his official obligation by refusing to issue a stern statement on this serious matter of war and peace. And what's
the US up to? Until recently, writes Sarah
Van Gelder at Huffington Post, the power struggle within the
Bush administration over whether to attack Iran seemed to be going
badly for the hawks. Their disastrous record in Iraq coupled with
flimsy arguments for attacking Iran meant they were gaining little
support. But now it appears congressional Democrats may be riding
to the rescue of those pushing for war. Bills have been introduced
in both houses that would impose strict inspections on all cargo
inbound to Iran. Imposing "stringent inspection requirements" would amount to a naval blockade, many believe, and thus constitute an act of war. At the very least, it would be perceived by Iranians of all political persuasions as a hostile act, further marginalizing moderate voices, unifying the country behind the most belligerent leaders, and bolstering the argument of those within Iran who are pushing for the rapid development of nuclear weapons as a defense against U.S. attack. Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren't these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East? According to a recent story on CBS News, the answer seems to be a "full-court press" by the government of Israel and the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. CBS ran the story Tuesday as Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen was on his way to the Middle East to confer with Israeli government officials. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next [U.S.] administration vis-à-vis Iran," CBS consultant Michael Oren says in the report. Hence the rush to war? It sure looks like war, if these bills become law and the UN falls in line. H. Con. Res 362 (introduced by Democrat Gary Ackerman) and S.Res.580 (by Democrat Evan Bayh) are identical bills which have as their goal "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently...." The bill:
So the US is concerned about North Korea's uranium enrichment and, thanks to the Democrats, ready to go to war over Iran's. As Edward Abbey said: "As war and government prove, insanity is the most contagious of diseases." June 30, 2008 Don Bacon [send him mail] is a retired army officer who founded the Smedley Butler Society several years ago because, as General Butler said, "war is a racket." Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
|
