Washington doesn’t negotiate. It demands, wanting all other nations bowing to its will – Trump and neocons infesting his regime more hardline than their predecessors.
From Truman to Trump, 13 US presidents maintained an uneasy armistice with North Korea instead of formally ending the 1950s war – orchestrated by Washington, launched by the South against the North, not the other way around.
Despite publicly amicable Kim Jong-un/Trump interactions in Singapore last month, US relations toward Pyongyang remain adversarial – wanting the country denuclearized in return for empty promises.
America can never be trusted, Trump’s JCPOA pullout the latest example. His abandonment of an international agreement endorsed by the world community, unanimously adopted by the Security Council making it binding international law, shows what the DPRK is up against.
On July 6 and 7, Mike Pompeo visited North Korea for talks with its officials, Kim Jong-un not included. Notoriously hawkish on the country, he earlier said
“(t)he previous administration was negotiating from a position of weakness.”
“This administration will be negotiating from a position of enormous strength,” calling for “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of North Korea,” offering nothing substantive in return at the time.
Asked if he got closer to a timeline for DPRK denuclearization after concluding his visit on Saturday, he declined to say anything more than claim “progress in every element of our discussions” was made.
Both sides said further clarification of things discussed was needed. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pompeo sought three basic goals – complete, verifiable, irreversible DPRK denuclearization, security assurances, and repatriating remains of US soldiers from the 1950s war.
In June, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said Pompeo made 47 demands of North Korean officials during his last visit to achieve denuclearization, eliminating its ballistic and other missiles, along with relevant infrastructure before any lifting of sanctions or US security guarantees are given.
Hours after Pompeo’s departure on Saturday, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry spokesman diverged sharply from his “progress (achieved) in every element of our discussions” remark, saying:
“We were expecting the US…to come up with constructive measures to help build confidence in the spirit of reunion and talks.”
“However, the attitude of the US was indeed regrettable,” making unilateral demands, pledging nothing substantive in return, adding unsettling talks created a “dangerous phase that might rattle our willingness for denuclearization that had been firm.”
Instead of “offer(ing) constructive measures that would help build trust based on the spirit of the leaders’ summit…the attitude and stance (Pompeo) showed in the…meeting was regrettable.”
Hopes that Kim/Trump summit talks would lead to “lasting and stable peace…on the Korean peninsula” are more illusion than reality.
Washington wants pro-Western puppet regimes replacing all sovereign independent governments – North Korea very much included.
Peace and stability on the peninsula depend on its subservience to US interests.
Dark forces in Washington want North Korea co-opted as a US vassal state, part of its plot to isolate China, its key regional adversary.
Obama’s 2011 Asia pivot was all about advancing Washington’s military footprint to counter Beijing’s growing economic and military might, checking Russia in the Pacific at the same time.
Containment is longstanding US policy against key rivals, a dominant feature of Cold War politics, back with a vengeance under Trump.
US imperial wars rage in multiple theaters. Given Washington’s unbending hegemonic aims, conflicts against other sovereign independent nations could erupt any time at its discretion.
North Korea remains on the Trump regime’s target list if it refuses to accept US demands – with no assurances any of its own being met.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”
by Michel Chossudovsky
Available to order from Global Research!
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
