This seems to be a popular US spoken response to international challenges. G W Bush said it recently (April 2006) with regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the same earlier in 2005 when it was suggested that the US was planning a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
It was stated earlier on the challenges of Iraq and the “axis of evil” in a joint conference with Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi in February 2002.
And again when questioned in March 2002 about The Pentagon’s call for development of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Earlier this week, in response to the announcement that North Korea has (apparently) developed an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States (Alaska), US Ambassador to Japan too repeated the infamous phrase.
The phrase is little more than a crude euphemism that is lost on no one. “We will use force if we want to”. It is childish, and something one would expect to have been left in the playground.
David Straub, the former director of the Office of Korean Affairs at the State Department, who was deeply involved in US diplomacy with North Korea, has joined the ranks of ex-military and government officers criticising the current Bush regime’s foreign policy. He states in particular:
But then again, with people like John Bolton as a senior US diplomat, no wonder international US diplomacy is falling to pieces.
From: The Sydney Morning Herald
Bush policy a failure, says diplomat (excerpt)
June 22, 2006
...In a rare public attack on the Administration by a foreign service officer, the retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs, David Straub, also questioned the decision-making on the issue by the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
One fundamental failure of President George Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that "all options" were on the table, a phrase underscoring US intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.
"Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table, but you don't have to talk about it all the time," Mr Straub said.
Mr Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Dr Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying US views on issues papered over in the agreement. The US statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement...
It was stated earlier on the challenges of Iraq and the “axis of evil” in a joint conference with Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi in February 2002.
And again when questioned in March 2002 about The Pentagon’s call for development of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Earlier this week, in response to the announcement that North Korea has (apparently) developed an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States (Alaska), US Ambassador to Japan too repeated the infamous phrase.
The phrase is little more than a crude euphemism that is lost on no one. “We will use force if we want to”. It is childish, and something one would expect to have been left in the playground.
David Straub, the former director of the Office of Korean Affairs at the State Department, who was deeply involved in US diplomacy with North Korea, has joined the ranks of ex-military and government officers criticising the current Bush regime’s foreign policy. He states in particular:
“Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table, but you don’t have to talk about it all the time.”
But then again, with people like John Bolton as a senior US diplomat, no wonder international US diplomacy is falling to pieces.
From: The Sydney Morning Herald
Bush policy a failure, says diplomat (excerpt)
June 22, 2006
...In a rare public attack on the Administration by a foreign service officer, the retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs, David Straub, also questioned the decision-making on the issue by the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
One fundamental failure of President George Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that "all options" were on the table, a phrase underscoring US intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.
"Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table, but you don't have to talk about it all the time," Mr Straub said.
Mr Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Dr Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying US views on issues papered over in the agreement. The US statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement...
7 comments:
Just a thought, a thought I have had while I attempt to not draw conclusions.
Is it wrong for the Dubyah administration to signal the "military option" ahead of time if that option is seriously being considered?
Would it be better for the Dubyah administration to assure everyone that military options are not being considered and then sucker punch the North Koreans?
Something tells me you would have a problem with this course of action as well. Personally, I prefer that if the Dubyah administration is considering military action they are at least truthful about it.
Now I am not saying military action is justified or desirable. I am still undecided. What I am saying is that if the Dubyah administration is considering such action, then I think it is desirable that it communicates their thoughts to the "huddled masses".
But even when a little honesty comes out, you still find a reason to complain.
Once again, you are missing the point entirely.
International diplomacy seems to be a skill lost to the Bush Administration. The whole point of diplomacy is that you get what you want by effective bargaining.
As per the article, no government ever takes options off the table. However, it is counter-productive to talk about the military option all the time. Even recently with NK, Bush and co. stated that they will not deal (engage with talks) with Kim if he is threatening to test ICBMs. Why then, does the US think that other nations will want to engage with talks with the US if it is threatening military interventions?
The US had ample opportunities with both Iran and NK over the recent years to enter into talks (which would have prevented the current "crises") but in both cases, the initiative stalled over what can only be described as moronic gaffes. When the unpleasant endpoint is war one would think that restraining the grandstanding for the domestic audience would be wise.
Regards,
Michael Tam
So then your point is that the US should engage in one on one negotiations with North Korea like North Korea insists? Is that the point that I am missing is it only that your point is completely lacking as to the reality of the current situation?
I will point out that the US did engage in one on one negotiations with North Korea. Former President Jimmy Carter traveled to Pyongyang and negotiated a deal. North Korea was to receive economic assistance, energy assistance and even a couple light water nuclear reactors for giving up her nuclear weapons program.
Now this is what the negotiations resulted in. The US was honoring her end of the bargain but it turns out North Korea was continuing the nuclear weapons development program she had agreed to give up.
The US is willing to enter/continue negotiations with North Korea. The one thing that the US is now insisting on is that the negotiations include all members of the Six Parties. In other words, North Korea's neighbors China, Russia, South Korea and Japan must have some input on what is agreed to.
In this case, the US is insisting that the international community should be included and is not insisting on "going it alone".
Isn't this a positive developement?
If you are pointing to days of Jimmy Carter then you needs an update in what has happened in the past several decades.
The impasse over North Korea's nuclear program was highlighted this week by the retired head of the State Department's Korea desk, David Straub, who blamed the then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, for vetoing the then secretary of state Colin Powell's proposal to negotiate directly with the North Koreans in 2002-03.
Straub told a Washington group of Korea specialists that the Administration never wanted any "real give and take", immediately sabotaged the progress at the six-nation talks last September by issuing "clarifications", and constantly upset the South Koreans by reminding everyone that "all options" were open. Opinion polls showed many South Koreans considered the US a bigger problem than North Korea. "I can't think of a better definition of diplomatic failure," Straub said.
Source article.
The point which you seem to continue to evade is that the current crisis with NK and Iran is for a large part the result of diplomatic failure - either deliberate or as the result of incompetence.
I don't even know what you are going on about with the "insisiting six parties" nonsense. The "6 parties" simply want the US to stop scuttling the process and be serious with negotiations.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Jimmy Carter's negotiations did not happen "decades" ago. They were conducted not during the Jimmy Carter administration, but during the Clinton administration in 1994.
As for your statement: "The point which you seem to continue to evade is that the current crisis with NK and Iran is for a large part the result of diplomatic failure - either deliberate or as the result of incompetence."
So then you now demand that the US engage in two party talks with North Korea like North Korea demands? Wouldn't this qualify for condemnation as the US "once again" engaging in "go it alone" diplomacy and action? Isn't this one of the things the critics (perhaps including you) want the Dubyah Bush administration to change?
My god, the US continues to insist the opinions of North Korea's neighbors like China, Russia, South Korea and Japan must be considered and included in negotiations. Why, this is just awful. We have to put a stop to this injustice!
We can always go back to bitching about US diplomatic failures once negotiations are done. We can also become hypocrites if this "go it alone" diplomacy fails by pointing out how if America had only insisted on including North Korea's neighbors the efforts probably would have resulted in success.
North Korea insists on two party talks. America insists on returning to six party talks and including North Korea's neighbors.
As for the US scuttling negotiations, one thing the US continues to insist upon is that negotiations will result in North Korea disarming from her nuclear weapons capability. Until that is included in negotiations, we have nothing to talk about.
Let the talk become five party talks then and exclude the US if the North Korea's four neighbors think the US has no business being included in the negotiations. Of course I do not think this is going to satisfy the North Koreans. They do not want to talk to anyone other then the US.
As for the US scuttling negotiations, one thing the US continues to insist upon is that negotiations will result in North Korea disarming from her nuclear weapons capability. Until that is included in negotiations, we have nothing to talk about.
Let the talk become five party talks then and exclude the US if the North Korea's four neighbors think the US has no business being included in the negotiations. Of course I do not think this is going to satisfy the North Koreans. They do not want to talk to anyone other then the US.
That is a complete mischaracterisation and you know it.
NK and the other parties want the US to be on board for the discussions. However, the other 5 parties want the US to take the diplomatic initiative seriously.
As per the speech by Straub.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Well I disagree with Mr Straub.
I do not think it is wrong on the part of the US to demand that the result of negotiations will be North Korea's disarming of any nuclear weapons capability.
If the other parties can live with a nuclear armed North Korea, let them then engage in negotiations for the conditions that they will find to be acceptable while this happens.
As for America, we have engaged in two party talks (conducted by Jimmy Carter) and found them to be lacking in honoring what they agreed upon.
Perhaps if we include other parties in the negotiations, we can actually get North Korea to abide by what she agrees to.
My personal hopes is that by including China in such agreements, China will hold more power to threaten/reward North Korea then does the United States. China should not be rewarded for such involvement any more then other neighbors of North Korea unless we want a resumption of the Cold War where China is once again placed on the enemy side of things along with North Korea.
The US insistence on six party talks is a step forward. If China wants to include North Korea under China's nuclear umbrella, this will most certainly be acceptable. What is not acceptable is for North Korea to become a nuclear power. North Korea sells advanced weapons capability to unsavory nations.
As for Mr Straub, he is entitled to his opinion, but I am entitled to mine. Following Mr Straub's opinion, my opinion is we will end up accepting a nuclear armed North Korea, and I am insisting this is unacceptable.
Post a Comment