Since 2018, hundreds of new sanctions targeting the civilian economy have been imposed on the people of North Korea. In 2018 alone, new and existing sanctions caused almost 4,000 preventable civilian deaths. Around 11 million North Koreans are deprived of sufficient access to basic foodstuffs, clean drinking water or essential medical services.
Subjected to ever-increasing sanctions, North Korea is projected to suffer a food deficit of 1.3. million tons this year, worsening the already dire condition endured by a broad swath of the population. More than 40 percent of North Korea’s 25 million people are considered chronically food insecure, and one out of every five children under the age of 5 is impacted by stunted growth.
Since 2018, hundreds of new sanctions targeting the civilian economy have been imposed on the people of North Korea. In 2018 alone, new and existing sanctions caused almost 4,000 preventable civilian deaths. Around 11 million North Koreans are deprived of sufficient access to basic foodstuffs, clean drinking water or essential medical services.
Subjected to ever-increasing sanctions, North Korea is projected to suffer a food deficit of 1.3. million tons this year, worsening the already dire condition endured by a broad swath of the population. More than 40 percent of North Korea’s 25 million people are considered chronically food insecure, and one out of every five children under the age of 5 is impacted by stunted growth. The latest UN Human Rights Council report highlights “deaths by starvation” as well as “an increase in the number of children and elderly people who have resorted to begging.”
Few people around the world know about the extent of this human suffering. Reports of the ongoing humanitarian tragedy have n ot been given the attention they deserve because of the saturation of negative media coverage of North Korea, which is dominated by reports on the country’s nuclear program. The human side of the conflict is given short shrift, with little attention devoted to either the effectiveness or the human cost of economic sanctions.
While it goes without saying that the North Korean government bears the primary responsibility for the welfare of its people, it is important to note the extraordinary nature of U.S.-drafted UN sanctions — as well as unilateral U.S. sanctions — which by design inflict catastrophic impact on people in North Korea.
Take, for instance, the vast expansion of existing UN sanctions targeting North Korea’s civilian economy, which were initiated by President Obama and subsequently escalated by the Trump administration. These U.S.-authored restrictions were touted by the Trump administration as “the heaviest sanctions ever imposed on a country,” and include restrictions on oil and petroleum product imports, devastating the civilian and household economy and triggering an energy shortage that has reduced the reach of the country’s already spotty supply of electricity to less than a quarter of households. This past winter, millions of ordinary North Koreans endured extreme winter temperatures as low as 3 degrees Fahrenheit without reliable heating or electricity.
The new sanctions also prohibit the import of foodstuffs and critical agricultural components, openly violating the 1977 Additional Protocol of the Geneva Convention, which specifically forbids any action that erodes agricultural production, “whatever the motive.” Unsurprisingly, precipitous drops in agricultural production have occurred as a result. Food has become increasingly scarce, causing more than 1 million additional North Korean civilians to slip into food insecurity as a result of the restrictions on food and agricultural imports. The increasing scarcity of even basic food items disproportionately impacts the poor, the sick and elderly, as well as newborns.
In addition to strangling the flow of critical civilian imports, these sanctions also ban 90 percent of North Korea’s exports, including minerals, seafood and textiles, impacting hundreds of thousands of ordinary North Koreans employed in these industries — particularly women, who make up the bulk of the workforce in these sectors.
The dire situation created by these U.S.-drafted UN sanctions are exacerbated by the unilateral sanctions imposed by Washington, which allow the U.S. Treasury to block anyone doing business with North Korea from accessing the U.S. financial system. This has caused a shortage of much-needed foreign currency, and further contributed to food insecurity by reducing incomes while raising the cost of food.
Unilateral U.S. sanctions have also incapacitated the NGOs and UN agencies running the humanitarian programs that provide life-saving aid to more than 13 million vulnerable North Koreans. They delay exemptions and block imports of critical medical supplies, such as catheters and needles, increasing easily preventable hospital-related deaths, such as mothers dying as a result of childbirth. According to the Enhancing North Korea Humanitarian Assistance Act, even the laptops and administrative supplies used by humanitarian workers in North Korea are subject to sanctions, which have created an insurmountable barrier of red tape for humanitarian organizations.
While the UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly recommended the removal of “sanctions that negatively affect people’s human rights” in North Korea, any attempt to lift or even reduce the impact of sanctions has consistently been met with steadfast opposition in Washington. In recent years, the weaponization of sanctions, hunger and human suffering has come to be regarded as a means to force denuclearization on North Korea, signaling the final devolution of state policy into extortion. Take, for instance, John Bolton’s warning to the Biden administration against lifting sanctions:
North Korea is weaker today than perhaps ever before in its history…. This is hardly the time to relieve the pressure of economic sanctions and international isolation. This is the time to demand concessions from Pyongyang.
Does the United States have the right to implement a policy of inflicting deliberate harm on the weak and vulnerable based on the cold calculus that doing so will increase its foreign policy leverage? Should the fate of children, the sick and the elderly be used as bargaining chips to induce concessions from their government? Any policy designed to reduce access to basic foodstuffs, life-saving medical supplies and humanitarian aid appears to be consciously targeted to this end.
The Geneva Convention labels such actions as crimes against humanity during wartime — a significant nuance since the 70-year-old Korean War is technically ongoing. Continuing a sanctions regime that is, by design, based on collective punishment violates international norms.
U.S. policies that aim to undermine regime security in North Korea by imposing costs on its powerless population are wrongheaded in the extreme. Even as these brutal sanctions have caused widespread and significant human suffering, they have failed to achieve any progress whatsoever with respect to U.S. foreign policy goals.
As the Biden administration completes its North Korea policy review in the coming weeks, it needs to realize that weaponized misery and collective punishment is neither ethically acceptable nor an effective tool of statecraft — it’s a form of collective punishment that should never be considered. Before the current humanitarian crisis spirals further out of control, the U.S. must return to the politics of engagement and diplomacy, which offer the only consistent path to rapprochement, stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula.
Australia has always struggled to present an independent foreign policy to the world. For example, during its early days as a British colony its soldiers fought in the Crimean war in the mid 19th century, although it would be impossible to identify any Australian interest in that conflict. World War One saw a similar eagerness to die on behalf of the British Empire. To this day the most solemn day in the Australian calendar is 25th April, ANZAC Day, when Australian and New Zealand troops were sacrificed by their incompetent British officers to a hopeless campaign in Turkey during World War One.
The same saga was repeated during World War II when Australian troops were rushed to North Africa to fight Rommel’s desert army. They were only withdrawn from that theatre following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, when defending home territory from the Japanese superseded defending Britain in its European war.
The fall of Singapore to the Japanese had a profound effect on Australian military thinking. Foremost was the realisation that they could no longer rely on Britain for their safety. Rather than formulating a plan for having a uniquely Australian tinge to their defence, Australia simply switched its allegiance from the British to the Americans. That allegiance has continued to the present day and is essentially a bipartisan affair, with both the major political parties swearing undying allegiance to the Americans.
What did not change from the days of allegiance to a participation in Britain’s wars, was an affinity simply transferred to the Americans to join their wars, regardless of the merits, military or otherwise, of doing so.
Thus Australia was an eager participant in the first post-World War II exercise in American imperialism when it joined the war in Korea. Australian troops later joined in the invasion of North Korea, contrary to the terms of the United Nations resolution authorising the conflict. After the Chinese joined the war when the western forces reached the North Korea – China border, they were quickly expelled back to the southern portion of the Korean peninsula.
As is well known, the Americans used their aerial domination to bomb the North until the armistice was finally signed in 1953. During that air war every city in the North suffered severe damage. More than 600,000 civilians died, which was greater than the military losses of around 400,000. To this day the war remains technically alive as no peace treaty has been signed. Of the 17,000 Australian troops that served in Korea, there were 340 fatalities and more than 1400 injured, a comparatively small number for a war that lasted three years.
In 1962 Australian troops arrived in South Vietnam and remained there until January 1973 when they were withdrawn by the Whitlam Labor government. It was Australia’s longest war up until that time. The withdrawal of Australian troops by the Whitlam government incensed the Americans, on whose behalf they were there. The withdrawal drew the enmity of the Americans and was a major factor in the American role in the overthrow of the Whitlam government in November 1975. It is a fact barely acknowledged in Australian writing on the demise of the Whitlam government. It did, however, have a profound effect on Australian political and military thinking. Since November 1975 there has been no recognisable Australian difference from United States belligerence throughout the world.
The next miscalculation was Australia joining the United States led war in Afghanistan. That is now Australia’s longest war, rapidly approaching 20 years of involvement with no sign or political talk about withdrawing. It is a war that has largely passed out of mainstream media discussion. This ignorance was briefly disrupted by revelations in late 2020 that Australian troops had been involved in war crimes in Afghanistan, specifically, the killing of innocent Afghanistan civilians.
The brief publicity given to this revelation rapidly passed and Australia’s involvement in its longest war once more faded from public view. The mainstream media remains totally silent on Australia’s involvement on behalf of the Americans in protecting the poppy crop, source of 90% of the world’s heroin supply and a major source of uncountable illicit income for the CIA.
Australia’s next foreign intervention on behalf of the Americans was in the equally illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. They have simply ignored demands by the Iraqi government in 2020 that all uninvited foreign troops should leave. The involvement of Australian troops in that country, and indeed in adjoining Syria where they have been since at least 2015 is simply ignored by the mainstream media.
Australia also plays a role in the United States war machine through the satellite facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. That base is one of a number of United States military facilities in the country, another topic that is deemed by the mainstream media as being unfit for public discussion.
Another unsung role of the Australian Navy is to be part of the United States confrontation with China in the South China Sea where they protect so-called freedom of navigation exercises, despite the complete absence of any evidence of Chinese interference with civilian navigation in those waters. Equally unexplained is the Australian Navy’s presence in the narrow Straits of Malacca, a vital Chinese export waterway.
Last year the Trump administration resurrected the “gang of four” that is, India, Japan, the United States and Australia, a blatantly anti-China grouping designed to put pressure on the Chinese government in the Indo Pacific region. The measure is doomed to fail, not least because both India and Japan have more attractive opportunities as part of the burgeoning cooperation in trade among multiple countries in the Asia-Pacific who see better opportunities arising from a friendly relationship with China than the blatantly antagonistic options offered by the Americans.
Australia seems impervious to these signals. It has already suffered major setbacks to its trade with China, not to mention a diplomatic cold shoulder. The political leadership is silent on this development, perhaps unable to grasp the implications of its changing relationship with China. The inability of the Labor Opposition to grasp the implications of the consequences of Australia clinging to the fading American coattails is of profound concern.
All the signs are that the relationship with its largest trading partner, by a big margin, will continue to deteriorate. Australians seem unable or unwilling to grasp the lesson that its economic problems are intimately linked to its subservient role to the United States.
There is every indication that their fortunes in Asia will sink together.
Australia has always struggled to present an independent foreign policy to the world. For example, during its early days as a British colony its soldiers fought in the Crimean war in the mid 19th century, although it would be impossible to identify any Australian interest in that conflict. World War One saw a similar eagerness to die on behalf of the British Empire. To this day the most solemn day in the Australian calendar is 25th April, ANZAC Day, when Australian and New Zealand troops were sacrificed by their incompetent British officers to a hopeless campaign in Turkey during World War One.
The same saga was repeated during World War II when Australian troops were rushed to North Africa to fight Rommel’s desert army. They were only withdrawn from that theatre following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, when defending home territory from the Japanese superseded defending Britain in its European war.
The fall of Singapore to the Japanese had a profound effect on Australian military thinking. Foremost was the realisation that they could no longer rely on Britain for their safety. Rather than formulating a plan for having a uniquely Australian tinge to their defence, Australia simply switched its allegiance from the British to the Americans. That allegiance has continued to the present day and is essentially a bipartisan affair, with both the major political parties swearing undying allegiance to the Americans.
What did not change from the days of allegiance to a participation in Britain’s wars, was an affinity simply transferred to the Americans to join their wars, regardless of the merits, military or otherwise, of doing so.
Thus Australia was an eager participant in the first post-World War II exercise in American imperialism when it joined the war in Korea. Australian troops later joined in the invasion of North Korea, contrary to the terms of the United Nations resolution authorising the conflict. After the Chinese joined the war when the western forces reached the North Korea – China border, they were quickly expelled back to the southern portion of the Korean peninsula.
As is well known, the Americans used their aerial domination to bomb the North until the armistice was finally signed in 1953. During that air war every city in the North suffered severe damage. More than 600,000 civilians died, which was greater than the military losses of around 400,000. To this day the war remains technically alive as no peace treaty has been signed. Of the 17,000 Australian troops that served in Korea, there were 340 fatalities and more than 1400 injured, a comparatively small number for a war that lasted three years.
In 1962 Australian troops arrived in South Vietnam and remained there until January 1973 when they were withdrawn by the Whitlam Labor government. It was Australia’s longest war up until that time. The withdrawal of Australian troops by the Whitlam government incensed the Americans, on whose behalf they were there. The withdrawal drew the enmity of the Americans and was a major factor in the American role in the overthrow of the Whitlam government in November 1975. It is a fact barely acknowledged in Australian writing on the demise of the Whitlam government. It did, however, have a profound effect on Australian political and military thinking. Since November 1975 there has been no recognisable Australian difference from United States belligerence throughout the world.
The next miscalculation was Australia joining the United States led war in Afghanistan. That is now Australia’s longest war, rapidly approaching 20 years of involvement with no sign or political talk about withdrawing. It is a war that has largely passed out of mainstream media discussion. This ignorance was briefly disrupted by revelations in late 2020 that Australian troops had been involved in war crimes in Afghanistan, specifically, the killing of innocent Afghanistan civilians.
The brief publicity given to this revelation rapidly passed and Australia’s involvement in its longest war once more faded from public view. The mainstream media remains totally silent on Australia’s involvement on behalf of the Americans in protecting the poppy crop, source of 90% of the world’s heroin supply and a major source of uncountable illicit income for the CIA.
Australia’s next foreign intervention on behalf of the Americans was in the equally illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. They have simply ignored demands by the Iraqi government in 2020 that all uninvited foreign troops should leave. The involvement of Australian troops in that country, and indeed in adjoining Syria where they have been since at least 2015 is simply ignored by the mainstream media.
Australia also plays a role in the United States war machine through the satellite facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. That base is one of a number of United States military facilities in the country, another topic that is deemed by the mainstream media as being unfit for public discussion.
Another unsung role of the Australian Navy is to be part of the United States confrontation with China in the South China Sea where they protect so-called freedom of navigation exercises, despite the complete absence of any evidence of Chinese interference with civilian navigation in those waters. Equally unexplained is the Australian Navy’s presence in the narrow Straits of Malacca, a vital Chinese export waterway.
Last year the Trump administration resurrected the “gang of four” that is, India, Japan, the United States and Australia, a blatantly anti-China grouping designed to put pressure on the Chinese government in the Indo Pacific region. The measure is doomed to fail, not least because both India and Japan have more attractive opportunities as part of the burgeoning cooperation in trade among multiple countries in the Asia-Pacific who see better opportunities arising from a friendly relationship with China than the blatantly antagonistic options offered by the Americans.
Australia seems impervious to these signals. It has already suffered major setbacks to its trade with China, not to mention a diplomatic cold shoulder. The political leadership is silent on this development, perhaps unable to grasp the implications of its changing relationship with China. The inability of the Labor Opposition to grasp the implications of the consequences of Australia clinging to the fading American coattails is of profound concern.
All the signs are that the relationship with its largest trading partner, by a big margin, will continue to deteriorate. Australians seem unable or unwilling to grasp the lesson that its economic problems are intimately linked to its subservient role to the United States.
There is every indication that their fortunes in Asia will sink together.
Choe Son Hui, First Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, gave a statement to media on the 17th.
The statement said:
The United States has tried to make contact with us through several channels including that in New York since mid February.
Recently, it requested the contact with us by e-mail and telephone message through different channels and, at the night just before the start of the joint military exercises, sent us through a third country another message for our affirmative response to the contact.
However, we deem it not necessary to consent the US attempt to get time again.
We declared already our stand that any DPRK-US contact and dialogue cannot be made unless the US hostile policy is withdrawn and, accordingly, will ignore such US attempt in the future.
A new database project is memorializing the “footprints” of people taken by North Korea
With support from HURIDOCS, the Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG) and its partners recently launched Footprints, an open archive that documents arbitrary detentions, abductions and enforced disappearances committed in and by North Korea. The database, which was created in Uwazi with HURIDOCS support, features files on nearly 20,000 cases since the 1950s. The collaboration is profiled in a newly published blog post: <https://5if28.r.a.d.sendibm1.com/mk/cl/f
Today, as the United States and South Korea begin their annual combined military exercises, I’m reminded of the two years I spent in South Korea as a member of the U.S. Army and my participation in military war games in 2004.
Like most Americans, I was blissfully ignorant of how these joint military exercises — which simulate war on the Korean Peninsula and have involved tens of thousands of troops — damage the psyche of the local people and raise tensions between the United States, South Korea and North Korea.
As a medic, my role was to set up a decontamination station on the base airstrip in preparation for a chemical attack from North Korea. Like other soldiers, I only focused on my task at hand. The exercises are highly compartmentalized, so one never sees the full picture of the impact of our actions. I only viewed the situation in black-and-white terms — that the U.S. military was the “good cop” protecting South Korea from the “enemy,” North Korea. But as I learned later, the reality is far more complicated.
As part of my stay in South Korea, I went on a three-day Korean cultural excursion offered by Better Opportunity for Single Soldiers, a service offered by the base’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation office. The tour guide shared with us that the Koreas have long been a unified people with a history that extends back to the 7th century. It was only after World War II that the United States and the Soviet Union divided Korea at the 38th Parallel into North and South Korea, without consulting any Koreans.
Because the Korean War (1950-1953) was halted by a ceasefire, the U.S. permanently stationed thousands of troops in South Korea. Military exercises on the Korean Peninsula became a regular occurrence, and they grew in size and scope over the years. The massive Team Spirit exercises that took place from 1974 to 1993, the Key Resolve exercises of the 2010s, and Ulchi Freedom Guardian, which used to take place every August, are just some of the military drills that have taken place in South Korea.
Korean Americans at Love Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in March 2021.Joe PIette
In a recent Truthout op-ed, retired Army colonel and former U.S. diplomat Ann Wright noted that the U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises “have involved the use of B-2 bombers capable of dropping nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines equipped with nuclear weapons, as well as the firing of long-range artillery and other large caliber weapons.” These drills often involve troops maneuvering close to North Korea’s borders, airspace and territorial waters.
Not surprisingly, people in North Korea have long seen these yearly military exercises as a threat to their existence and a rehearsal to their invasion.
Yet U.S. leadership downplays North Korean concerns about the military drills and suggests that the North Korean government is overreacting. Former Assistant Defense Secretary Wallace “Chip” Gregson said, “We have to get past our worries about this being somehow provocative to North Korea. It’s like saying having fire departments in downtown Seoul is somehow provocative to fire. North Korea should be given no credibility complaining about any exercises we do that are thoroughly defensive in nature….”
In fact, history shows that suspending the U.S.-South Korea military exercises has been critical to reducing tensions and advancing diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea. Case in point: President Clinton’s suspension of the Team Spirit exercises in the 1990s led to a breakthrough in nuclear negotiations with Pyongyang that produced the 1994 Agreed Framework. North Korea’s nuclear weapons development remained halted throughout Clinton’s presidency. The agreement was later sabotaged by George W. Bush, who named North Korea as part of the “axis of evil” and then went on to destroy Iraq.
President Donald Trump’s attempts to de-escalate tension with North Korea were dizzyingly inconsistent. On the one hand, he threatened “fire and fury” and Armageddon on the North Koreans. He increased already devastating economic sanctions as part of his counterproductive “maximum pressure” strategy. At the same time, he offered friendly direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — an approach never entertained by previous American leadership.
After his meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore in 2018, Trump promised to suspend the joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises in the hopes of furthering diplomatic talks with North Korea. But Trump was bombarded by bipartisan criticism, including from some progressives, and the mainstream press went into complete meltdown. South Korean President Moon Jae-in, however, welcomed the move to suspend the joint military exercises as part of the country’s need “to flexibly change its military pressure against the North in the spirit of building mutual trust as agreed in the Panmunjom Declaration.”
Korean Americans at Poopoo Point in Seattle, Washington, in March 2021.Roy Kim
Some might ask, “Why doesn’t South Korea simply refuse to conduct the combined exercises?” As it turns out, the Moon administration has its own reason for wanting the drills to resume this year. According to Wooksik Cheong, founder and representative of the South Korean NGO Peace Network, a top priority for the Moon administration in its remaining year in office is the transfer of wartime operational control from the U.S. to South Korea, but this is predicated on the war drills. As background, during the Korean War, South Korea handed operational control over its armed forces to the U.S., and it has never gotten it back. Today, a U.S. commander of the U.S.-South Korea Combined Forces Command has wartime operational control — meaning a U.S. general would automatically be in charge of the allied forces should a war break out on the Korean Peninsula. This arrangement has been described as “the most remarkable concession of sovereignty in the entire world” by former U.S. Forces Korea Commander Richard Stilwell. The key condition required by the U.S. for the transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea is that it must prove through the war drills that it has its own deterrence capability against North Korea. While the Moon administration pushed hard for the inclusion of the Full Operational Capability (FOC) test in this week’s war drills, Pentagon officials have reportedly rejected this, opting to focus the drills on alliance readiness “to fight tonight” instead. In other words, even if the war drills resume this year, there is no guarantee that the U.S. would agree to give back wartime operational control to South Korea.
What’s often missing from the discussion in the United States, however, is the desires of the South Korean people. For decades, South Korean citizens have been protesting U.S. military bases on their soil.
After I left Camp Humphreys in early 2005, South Koreans protested a U.S.-South Korean plan to triple the size of the base. Residents facing displacement from their homes and farmland as a result of the base expansion mobilized to resist the expansion plan.
As a Puerto Rican whose people had resisted the U.S. Navy for decades, I could relate to their plight. Elderly farmers in Daechuri and Doduri, two villages affected by the base expansion, held candlelight vigils at the local schoolyard every night for three years. At times, they were joined by thousands of supporters from across the country. Eventually, the South Korean government mobilized thousands of soldiers and police in riot gear to quell the demonstrations, and over 1,000 villagers were displaced from their homes to make way for what would become the largest overseas U.S. military base.
In 2016, residents in Seongju protested the installation of the U.S. missile defense system Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). Sustained protest by local residents forced the U.S. military to supply equipment and construction materials to the base by helicopter.
More military exercises mean more tensions, more weapons, more displacement and the continued risk of renewed war. Although this year’s drills were announced to be a computerized scenario-based training exercise, they are still provocative and will raise alarm bells in Pyongyang. That’s why a global network of nearly 400 U.S., South Korean and international civil society organizations recently sent a joint statement to President Joe Biden urging him to suspend the upcoming war games once and for all:
At a time when the world is facing urgent humanitarian, environmental, and economic crises, these military exercises divert critically needed resources away from our capacity to provide true human security such as healthcare, a sustainable environment and other priorities.
Now they’re calling on supporters to sign an online petition to send to the Biden administration and are holding peace rallies around the globe.
During my stay in South Korea, a young Korean soldier told me that his dream was to one day ride his motorcycle from the southern tip of the peninsula all the way to the northern end — a day when no DMZ (demilitarized zone) separates the Korean people. It’s clear that the people of South Korea want to end U.S. militarism in their homeland and to reunite with their kinfolks in the north. The United States should stop impeding this dream.
One of the thorniest foreign policy challenges the Biden administration will need to face is a nuclear-armed North Korea. Talks between the U.S. and North Korea have been stalled since 2019, and North Korea has continued to develop its weapons arsenal, recently unveiling what appears to be its largest intercontinental ballistic missile.
As a retired U.S. Army Colonel and U.S. diplomat with 40 years of experience, I know all too well how actions by the U.S. military can exacerbate tensions that lead to war. That’s why the organization I am a member of, Veterans for Peace, is one of several hundred civil society organizations in the U.S. and South Korea urging the Biden administration to suspend the upcoming combined U.S.-South Korea military exercises.
President Biden has inherited a terribly flawed US foreign policy. For the past few decades, the pro-corporate US foreign policy has been a catastrophic failure, especially in the Middle East. Our criminal military interventions there have resulted in the devastation of much of that area, impoverished millions, created millions of refugees, and injured or killed millions more. Moreover, this criminal policy has wasted trillions of US taxpayer dollars, injured or killed thousands of US forces, and has badly damaged US strategic interests.
The illegal US use of aggressive sanctions against nations that don’t follow its dictates has also harmed tens of millions of people worldwide. In addition, US pro-corporate trade policies as well as the US-influenced International Monetary Fund and World Bank have impoverished tens of millions in the Third World. Perhaps of even greater importance, the US-led opposition to enforceable policies that ameliorate the effects of climate chaos threatens billions of people.
Clearly these ruinous policies need to be changed. The Biden administration must seize this opportunity and implement a sane foreign policy. Below are some excellent principles that provide a guideline for such a foreign policy. These principles were laid out in the “ Cross of Iron” speech delivered by President Dwight Eisenhower on April 16, 1953. Two lengthy excerpts from this speech are shown next.
He said:
The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation’s security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
Third: Any nation’s right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation’s attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation’s hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
Later in this speech, Eisenhower added:
This Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction. The purposes of this great work would be to help other peoples to develop the underdeveloped areas of the world, to stimulate profitability and fair world trade, to assist all peoples to know the blessings of productive freedom. The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health. We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world. We are ready, by these and all such actions, to make of the United Nations an institution that can effectively g uard the peace and security of all peoples.
Eisenhower also pointed out the implications of spending huge amounts on military weapons in terms of homes, schools, hospitals, etc. that weren’t built.
President Eisenhower plainly recognized that our security and well-being, as well as that of all people on the planet, come from cooperation, not competition. Once we understand this point, the necessary policies become clear. In summary, President Eisenhower, a military icon who knew well the horrors of war, specifically stressed respect for the sovereignty of nations, the need to make the U.N. stronger, spoke against forced changes in regimes or economic systems, called for military disarmament and supported world aid and reconstruction. Even though he wasn’t correct in describing what the US was willing to do or its path, imagine the difference had Eisenhower or any of his successors followed through on his words.
President Biden now has the opportunity to follow Eisenhower’s counsel in a world where US actions have destroyed the myth of its moral authority or of being the exceptional nation. The US must work to rejoin the community of nations by complying with international law instead of running roughshod over it. This means among other things that the US must stop threatening other nations as well as ending its illegal sanctions.
In particular, possible steps the Biden administration could take in collaboration with the international community are:
share covid-19 vaccines with all nations at an affordable cost; may require the temporary suspension of patents;
create enforceable steps for dealing with climate chaos including a large and increasing carbon tax; and fulfill funding climate change commitments to Third World nations;
drastically reduce weapons spending, disband NATO and rely on the UN and diplomacy for settling conflicts; may require the ability to override a veto in the Security Council;
strongly support international law and human rights for Palestinians; also support enforcement of the Right of Return for Palestinians;
rejoin weapons treaties including the JCPOA (aka, the Iran Nuclear Deal) and ratify the Ban Nuclear Weapons Treaty;
pay reparations for their rebuilding to nations the US has devastated;
close overseas military bases;
end unilateral sanctions, especially those against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and North Korea; and,
strongly support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Disappointingly, it appears as if President Biden will continue to pursue the disastrous US foreign policy. It is up to us, we the people, to convince President Biden and Congress to put the public interest over corporate profits.
Persecution of Christians around the world has increased during the Covid pandemic, with followers being refused aid in many countries, authoritarian governments stepping up surveillance, and Islamic militants exploiting the crisis, a report says.
More than 340 million Christians – one in eight – face high levels of persecution and discrimination because of their faith, according to the 2021 World Watch List compiled by the Christian advocacy group Open Doors.
With the threat of nuclear war once again a part of the national conversation, Reveal looks at nuclear threats both foreign and domestic. This episode takes listeners to Iran and finds out what life is actually like inside North Korea.
As the Trump administration pushes for the biggest increase in spending on nuclear weapons since the Cold War, Reveal explores how they’ve changed. Instead of annihilation, think “flexible” nuclear weapons that can threaten “limited” nuclear war. That’s the idea anyway.
