Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
The Bush administration has repeatedly rejected North Korea’s appeals for a “non-aggression” pact. Bush believes that he has the inherent right to attack whomever he chooses if it is in the national interest, which is to say, if it furthers his ambitions for global domination.
Bush has openly supported “regime change” in North Korea and placed the country on his axis of evil list. On a personal level, Bush stated that he “loathes” Kim Jung-il and has referred to him as “a pygmy”.
These provocations have been duly noted in North Korea. Kim knows that he’s a top candidate for a preemptive attack unless he develops a credible deterrent. Any sane person would draw the same conclusion even if they hadn’t been humiliated in public as “evil”.
That’s why Kim has anticipated the worst and made plans to defend
himself; that’s the basic message behind Sunday’s nuclear blast. Kim’s
weapons program is the logical upshot of Bush’s belligerence. If there
was no threat, there would have been no explosion.
No one wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But, then, no one
wants the United States to develop a new regime of “tactical”
low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. We need to examine the
intention behind the development of these weapons if we really want to
know which is the greater risk. In North Korea’s case, the building of
a nuclear bomb is clearly intended to deter the US from an unprovoked
attack. In Bush’s case, the plan is to develop bunker-busting nukes
that will actually be used in first-strike attacks on heavily-fortified
underground sites. There’s a big difference between offensive and
defensive nukes and, clearly, Bush is the much greater threat.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has surrounded himself with “like-minded”
men who believe strongly in using nukes depending on battlefield
conditions. This has led to speculation that Bush will use these
weapons in a future attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is
frightening to think that Bush would be willing to break a 60 year-old
taboo on the mere suspicion that Iran may have a secret nuclear weapons
program.
Kim Jung-il poses no such threat. We can be reasonably certain that he
will not use his nukes in a first-strike initiative. In fact, for the
last 6 years he has endured the most withering abuse and humiliation
and never responded violently.
That’s restraint.
President Bush has created a problem that he now expects the world to
fix. If we look at Afghanistan, Haiti, and Iraq, we see that this is a
familiar pattern with the Bush troupe. They topple regimes and spread
mayhem, and then call on the UN or NATO to clean-up the mess. This
isn’t the proper role for the UN.
Bush never should have been allowed to speak at the United Nations.
He’s been involved in too many wars and coup d’etats to be given an
open platform to make an appeal for sanctions. He’s has flaunted the
rulings of the Security Council, (which never authorized the invasion
of Iraq) and perpetuated human rights abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Abu
Ghraib, and countless other detention centers across the globe. The
moral legitimacy of the United Nations is seriously undermined by
allowing a war criminal to address the General Assembly.
Even so, we don’t want to trigger a nuclear arms race because of the
reckless behavior of the Bush administration. Nuclear weapons in the
hands of autocrats only increase the likelihood of a tragic mistake.
The problem must be dealt with skillfully and evenhandedly.
The Security Council should ignore the administration’s bluster about
“additional sanctions”. We should disregard the judgment of people who
are only-too-willing to starve others to achieve their political
objectives. Millions of innocent civilians died in Iraq due to
American-backed sanctions just as Palestinians in Gaza are suffering
now. Nothing is achieved by cruelty which disguises itself as justice.
North Korea will not abandon its nuclear weapons until the threat of
American aggression has been removed. That much is certain. Therefore,
the best approach would be for the UN to convene bilateral negotiations
between the warring parties. If the Bush administration refuses, as it
has for 6 years, then the issue should be dropped. It is not the
function of the UN to carry out Washington’s directives, but to provide
a forum where disputes can be resolved in an atmosphere of impartiality
and justice.
The Security Council should ignore the demagoguery and threats of the
Bush administration and assume its proper role as a neutral arbiter.
That is the only way it can regain its credibility and provide
leadership when crises arise.
The current standoff is more important in terms of the future of the
United Nations than it is in resolving the nuclear dust-up between the
US and North Korea. In an imperfect world, international institutions
are crucial for establishing the standards for resolving disputes
through non-violent means. The Bush administration’s coercive tactics
at the Security Council; (particularly in stalling a ceasefire during
the US-Israeli 34-day attack on Lebanon, as well as forcing through
resolutions against Iran) shows that the UN is little more than a
rubber-stamp for America’s imperial aspirations. That has to change.
The world is looking for steadfast and judicious leadership to confront
the impending problems of global warming, peak oil, nuclear
proliferation, poverty and disease. Instead, we are left with an
ineffective “debating society” that has been hopelessly corrupted by
the unrelenting arm-twisting and intimidation of the United States. The
UN can't possibly meet the challenges of the new century if it
continues to act solely in the interests of one war-mongering state.
The UN’s first obligation should be to address the issues which pose
the greatest threat to world peace and security. That means that their
primary focus should be on resolving the dispute between
Israel-Palestine and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nations,
like Israel, that consistently defy clearly-stated UN resolutions
should be brought before the General Assembly for a vote to decide
whether it should be removed from the world body. That is simply the
last “peaceful” option for dealing with persistent violations to
international law, and it is an option which the UN must pursue to
regain its credibility.
Second, the General Assembly should decide on a plan for the withdrawal
of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Both conflicts have
caused tremendous suffering and death while destabilizing the entire
region. Whether the Bush administration is receptive to this plan or
not is irrelevant. It is the duty of the UN to provide the leadership,
the guidance and the moral authority by creating sound alternatives to
the daily carnage and despair generated by these crises. The first
priority is to stop the killing, remove American troops from
Sunni-dominated cities, and convene immediate negotiations with members
of the former government, the Iraqi resistance, Shiite leaders, and
representatives from the Kurdish leadership.
If the UN’s primary goal is peace and security, then it should insist
on a timetable for the withdrawal of all American troops, the closing
of all American bases, the relinquishing of all laws initiated by
occupation forces, the canceling of all claims to Iraqi resources or
capital assets, and a prospective plan for reparations for the damage
inflicted on Iraqi society.
The same rule applies to Afghanistan. American intervention has only
made conditions worse. There is no reconstruction, no “Marshall Plan”,
no democratically-elected government with a broad popular support. It
is a drug colony and a hell-hole made worse by American occupation.
It’s time to get out. War is not foreign policy. It is an expression of
moral corruption.
Will we really wait until Afghanistan degenerates into Iraqi-type horror before we call for an end to the occupation?
These are the issues that really beg for the attention of the United
Nations. North Korea and Iran are merely diversions; the next names on
Bush's endless “hit list”
Will the UN continue to waste its time placating the US or will it
regain its footing and offer some faint hope for a world that is
drifting toward disaster?
The present confrontation with North Korea is another opportunity for
the U.N. rise to the occasion, carry out its mandate and show that it
can act in a way that is consistent with universally-accepted standards
of justice. It must avoid caving in to pressure from the superpower and
devote its energy to more pressing issues. The choice could not be
clearer; the UN must either further align itself with the criminal
state or speak up for the people it is supposed to serve.
You are right on the money. I have been saying this for a long time. Please keep up the good work.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
COMMAND AUTHORITY written by Blaqfather,
October 15, 2006
National Command Authority (or NCA) is used in United States military circles to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The term refers to the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. As a matter of constitutional law, the President represents the unitary executive power of the United States. Therefore, if the Secretary of Defense refuses any order of the President, the President is free to dismiss him, in which case authority devolves to a subordinate The President is free to continue to dismiss these Acting Secretaries until he reaches one that agrees with his opinions.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Please keep up the good work.