>

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Knock, Knock, Knocking on Insanity's Door

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, upped the ante in Washington’s rhetorical war with North Korea and its backers, warning Wednesday that Washington is prepared to halt trade with countries that do business with North Korea, and possibly use force if diplomacy fails to curtail Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, reports Foreign Policy.

But China, North Korea’s largest trading partner, and Russia hit back, voicing stern opposition to new international sanctions, and pressing the United States to resolve the crisis through renewed diplomatic talks. The exchange raised the prospect that Washington’s diplomatic gambit could end with a Chinese and Russian veto, painting Washington into a diplomatic corner with limited economic and diplomatic options, FP continued.

Speaking at an emergency session of the Security Council, Haley said that North Korea’s first successful launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile and other recent tests “are closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution” to the nuclear standoff in east Asia.

The latest, longest-range test “requires an escalated diplomatic and economic response,” she said. The United States, she said, would introduce a resolution in the coming days to raise international pressure on North Korea.

“The world is on notice,” she told the 15-nation council. “If we fail to act in a serious way, there will be a different response.” The United States, she said, is “prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies. One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but prefer not to go in that direction.”

Haley said that she had spoken with President Donald Trump before the U.N. meeting about the possibility of imposing new trade restrictions on North Korea and its business partners.

“There are countries that are allowing — even encouraging — trade with North Korea in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions,” she said. “Such countries would also like to continue their trade arrangements with the United States. That’s not going to happen.”

She did not explicitly threaten to impose trade restrictions on China, but she noted that Beijing is responsible for 90 percent of North Korea’s trade. Russia has also reportedly been stepping up its trade relations with North Korea.

Yes, quite the strategy, attempt to muscle North Korea by isolating it even more or alternatively cut off trade with China and Russia.

“Much of the burden of enforcing U.N. sanctions rests with China,” she said. “We will work with China…But we will not repeat the inadequate approaches of the past that have brought us to this dark day.”

There is much more sanity from China and Russia.

China’s U.N. ambassador, Liu Jieyi, echoed Washington’s concerns about North Korea’s missile launch, calling it “a flagrant violation” of U.N. resolutions that flaunts the “will of the international community.

But he broke sharply with the U.S. on the response, saying that China is “firmly opposed to chaos and conflict on the peninsula. Military means must not be an option in this regard.”

A senior Russian diplomat, Vladimir Safronkov, used the meeting to promote a Russian-Chinese diplomatic initiative that would require as a first step that North Korea suspend its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile tests, while the United States and its regional allies halt large scale military exercises in the region. They also called on the U.S. and South Korea to halt the deployment of a missile defense system, known as THAAD, that they say threatens the strategic balance in the region.

“Any attempts to justify a military solution are inadmissible,” Safronkov said. “Any attempts to economically strangle North Korea are equally unacceptable….All must acknowledge that sanctions will not resolve the issue.”

In response, Haley took the floor to call on Safronkov to carefully consider its vote on the U.S. resolution.

“If you want to be a friend of North Korea, veto it,” she said. “But if you see this for what it is, which is North Korea showing its muscle, then you need to stand strong and vote with the international community to strengthen sanctions on North Korea. And if you chose not to we will go our own path.”

    -RW 




9 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Gotta be both. But here's the kicker: Big yawn from the American people. And we can't "opt - out" of the resulting holocaust. Time to work on that bucket list.

      Delete
    2. Yup, a Vietnam vet and I were talking about the sheeple cheering the military in our parade the other day. I said they have good intent but no knowledge what they are cheering. His response: "Worse, they have no desire to gain the knowledge."

      Delete
    3. The hubris that comes from having the world's biggest military arsenal is astounding. (USA! USA! USA!)

      Delete
    4. American's don't want to gain the knowledge because they believe every single millimeter of the earth belongs to them. Everyone would be just better off if they would just become American, if they don't want to, then they are just niggers who need to be eradicated.

      Delete
  2. "My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

    So far the Trump administration (with a few exceptions) needs to take the advise Jerry gave George in the Seinfeld episode The Opposite, "if every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right"

    ReplyDelete
  3. All I believe is that when my country and own town is threatened by nukes from crazy Kim, who shows movies of annihilating DC, we need to eliminate thst threat. Period. This is existential for me and my family, let alone the country. How can we possibly do otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This assumes that what your government is telling you about Kim's capabilities and intentions is correct; there are plenty of reasons to suspect your government is incompetent at its analysis at best, if not ill-intentioned. This also assumes that there aren't other ways to deal with the perceived problem; for instance, if Kim has developed nuclear weapons because he is afraid of a US/South Korean invasion, then maybe removing the US presence from South Korea, and allowing the two Koreas to work things out between themselves, might be a better alternative. As importantly, why should those in the US who don't share your view have to pay taxes, and suffer the blowback that comes from militarily strutting around the world, to implement your chosen strategy?

      Delete