World Beat
October 9, 2006
Vol. 1, No. 9 <http://fpif.org/fpifzines/wb/3577>
John Feffer, IRC
Tehran or Pyongyang?
North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear weapon. Iran refuses to halt
its uranium enrichment program. The non-proliferation regime teeters on
the brink. Washington's uncompromising tactics with both Tehran and
Pyongyang have failed to achieve anything but the most radioactive results.
When President Bush introduced the “axis of evil” of Iraq, Iran, and
North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union address, he seemed to be
establishing a hit list for U.S. military interventions. Four years
later, the targeted countries instead represent the three most prominent
foreign policy failures of the administration. Iraq is a mess, North
Korea has battered down the door of the nuclear club, and Iran has moved
in a more hardline direction under its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
If Washington were sensible, it would cut its losses: negotiate a
withdrawal from Iraq and sit down with both Iran and North Korea to
negotiate face-saving agreements. Instead, American policy analysts and
American citizens are fearful of the next war. Will it be a military
strike against Tehran or Pyongyang?
Squeezing Tehran
Publicly, the United States has focused on using sanctions to deter Iran
and North Korea from pursuing their nuclear aims. With Iran, the Bush
administration has tightened “the financial noose on Iran, banning
interaction with one of Iran's leading government-owned bank, Bank
Saderat,” writes Farideh Farhi in an FPIF policy report
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3560>. Congress passed the Iran Freedom
Support Act, extending sanctions against investments in the country's
oil industry for another five years.
But sanctions may only be the visible tip of the iceberg. As FPIF
columnist Frida Berrigan argues in War or Rumors of War
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3564>, the Bush administration has kept the
military option on the table and not simply on a rhetorical level.
“Given the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the sheer cost
of existing military commitments, it would seem that the last thing the
United States can afford right now is another war,” she writes. But the
Bush administration hasn't used much reality-based reasoning in its Iraq
policy. She concludes that the administration “is therefore unlikely to
use common sense in evaluating whether to attack Iran.”
FPIF contributor Phyllis Bennis believes that, leading up to the
November mid-term U.S. elections, another factor might be decisive.
“Growing opposition to the prospect of an Iran War,” she writes in an
op-ed <http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-22.htm>, “might lead
some members of the Bush administration to decide the political cost of
such a reckless adventure is too high.”
Surrounding Pyongyang
The Bush administration has been approaching the situation in North
Korea with almost identical hardheadedness. Instead of negotiating with
Pyongyang, it has insisted on a multilateral format—the Six Party
Talks—that has gone nowhere. It has applied a series of sanctions,
including limits on financial transactions that fail to discriminate
between North Korea's illicit operations and its legitimate economic
activities.
As with Iran, the Bush administration has insisted on keeping all
options on the table, even though the Pentagon has made it clear that a
military strike against North Korea would lead to retaliatory strikes
that would kill tens of thousands of U.S. and South Korean soldiers and
civilians. As with Iran, the Pentagon has confessed that it would have
great difficulty eliminating the dispersed nuclear facilities in North
Korea.
North Korea has not made matters easier. It went ahead with missile
launches in July and now a test in early October, even though both
actions have further alienated its already ambivalent ally China. Even
after its most recent provocation, however, Pyongyang has declared its
continued willingness to negotiate. It doesn't have much choice. A
nuclear weapon can't feed its people or rebuild its factories.
Will an attack on Iran or North Korea be the administration's October
surprise? The rally-around-the-flag effect of bombing either North Korea
or Iran would be overwhelmed by the sheer scope of the immediate
consequences, not to mention the longer term blowback. For military,
economic, and electoral reasons, it doesn't make sense for the Bush
administration to launch an attack against any country at this moment.
Alas, the administration seems to be singing only one tune these days,
that old Talking Heads favorite: /Stop Making Sense/.
Saving the World
If the chaos of the Iraq war and the prospect of military attacks on
North Korea and Iran weren't sufficiently depressing, there's always
global warming to worry about. Several years ago, 162 nations signed and
ratified the Kyoto protocol to reduce the emission of gasses that have
contributed to climate change. The United States signed the treaty, but
has not ratified it.
FPIF analyst Hoff Stauffer argues <http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3562>
that the Kyoto's focus on “cap and trade,” which establishes a market
for trading pollution credits, is the wrong approach. He maintains that
the older and more reliable strategy of establishing stricter
standards—on factories, cars, and home appliances—will have a much
greater impact on reducing the production of greenhouse gasses. His
essay, part of a larger FPIF strategic dialogue on climate change, is
worth reading all the way through. But go here
<http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3565> if you need the 60 Second Expert version.
Recently, a group of activists decided to go to Singapore to change the
world by trying to change the World Bank. Many key civil society
activists, including FPIF columnist Walden Bello, weren't even let into
the country. FPIF analyst Peter Bosshard puts this ban
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3570> into the larger context of the World
Bank's failure to listen to people on the ground where its development
projects threaten the livelihoods of so many.
Elsewhere at FPIF, Tom Barry investigates
<http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3567> the fear-mongering of the Bush
administration and Jim Lobe analyzes
<http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3563> how the United States has
scrapped the Geneva Conventions.
If you're in the Washington area, please join us on October 18 for the
30th annual Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award
<http://www.ips-dc.org/lm-awards/2006/> event sponsored by the Institute
for Policy Studies. The international award will be going to Maher Arar
and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Arar is a Canadian citizen
detained by U.S. officials in 2002, accused of terrorist links, and
handed over to Syrian authorities renowned for torture. Last month, the
Canadian government confirmed that Arar had been brutally tortured and
is innocent of all charges. The Center for Constitutional Rights has
taken up his case.
Links:
Farideh Farhi: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3560
Frida Berrigan: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3564
Phyllis Bennis: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-22.htm
Hoff Stauffer: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3562
60 Second Expert: http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3565
Peter Bosshard: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3570
Tom Barry: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3567
Jim Lobe: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3563
Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Awards: http://www.ips-dc.org/lm-awards/2006/
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new
kind of think tank—one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh,
internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our
FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial
support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends
on you and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget.
Click on http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php to support FPIF online, or
for information about making contributions over the phone or through the
mail.
*/We Count on Your Support. Thank you./*
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the
International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org
<http://www.irc-online.org/>) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS,
online at www.ips-dc.org <http://www.ips-dc.org/>). ©2006. All rights
reserved.
Subscribe <http://www.irc-online.org/lists/> to /World Beat/!
Produced and distributed by International Relations Center (IRC).
For more information, visit http://www.irc-online.org/.
If you would like to see IRC's variety of *free ezines and
listservs*, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
Please consider becoming an IRC member or donor. You can *join the
IRC* and make a secure donation by visiting
http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php. Thank you.
/World Beat/ aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S.
foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the
institutional positions of either the International Relations Center or
the Institute for Policy Studies.
We're working to make /World Beat/ informative and useful, so let us
know how we're doing, via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Please put "World Beat" in the subject
line. Please feel free to cross-post /World Beat/ elsewhere. We
apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive.
