english
nederlands
Indymedia NL
Independent Media Centre of the Netherlands
Indymedia NL is an independent free communication organisation. Indymedia offers an alternative approach to the news by using an open publishing method for text, images, video and audio.
> contact > search > archive > help > join > publish news > open newswire > disclaimer > chat
Search

 
All Words
Any Word
Contains Media:
Only images
Only video
Only audio

Dossiers
Agenda
CHAT!
LINKS

European NewsReal

MDI's complaint against Indymedia.nl
Courtcase Deutsche Bahn vs. Indymedia.nl
Topics
anti-fascisme / racisme
europa
feminisme
gentechnologie
globalisering
kunst, cultuur en muziek
media
militarisme
natuur, dier en mens
oranje
vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten
wereldcrisis
wonen/kraken
zonder rubriek
Events
G8
Oaxaca
Schinveld
Schoonmakers-Campagne
Help
Tips for newbies
A short intro into Indymedia NL
The policy of Indymedia NL
How to join?
Donate
Support Indymedia NL with donations!
Lawsuits cost a lot of money, we appreciate every (euro)cent you can spare!

You can also direct your donation to Dutch bank account 94.32.153 on behalf of Stichting Vrienden van Indymedia, Amsterdam (IBAN: NL41 PSTB 0009 4321 53)
Indymedia Network

www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa
ambazonia
canarias
estrecho / madiaq
kenya
nigeria
south africa

Canada
hamilton
london, ontario
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor
winnipeg

East Asia
burma
jakarta
japan
manila
qc

Europe
alacant
andorra
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
bristol
bulgaria
croatia
cyprus
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
lille
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
oost-vlaanderen
paris/île-de-france
poland
portugal
romania
russia
scotland
sverige
switzerland
thessaloniki
toulouse
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia
west vlaanderen

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
chile sur
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso

Oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
oceania
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india
mumbai

United States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
big muddy
binghamton
boston
buffalo
charlottesville
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
danbury, ct
dc
hampton roads, va
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
idaho
ithaca
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
omaha
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
seattle
tallahassee-red hills
tampa bay
tennessee
united states
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
armenia
beirut
israel
palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer
Credits
This site is produced by volunteers using free software where possible.

The system we use is available from:mir.indymedia.de
an alternative is available from: active.org.au/doc

Thanks to indymedia.de and mir-coders for creating and sharing mir!

Contact:
info @ indymedia.nl
Why Bush's preemption idea is dangerous
YellowTimes.org - 27.02.2003 03:09

Great article explaining why the idea of preemption will fail. The author uses North Korea as an example to prove his point.

"The dangers caused by a policy of preemption"
Printed on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 @ 02:07:24 EST

By Ash Pulcifer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) -- Soon after September 11, the Bush administration labeled North Korea as a member of an "axis of evil." Then, in September of 2002, the Bush administration released the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. In this policy paper, the administration wrote, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." Due to this policy, North Korea became concerned over the increasing militarism of the Bush administration. The strategy that North Korea devised to counter this perceived threat highlights the danger of preemption.

Kim Jong-il's government in Pyongyang, after learning that they were being targeted due to the American accusation that they were "evil," decided that the most effective way to keep the United States at bay was to create a military force powerful enough to deter the United States from aggression. After all, the Bush administration showed their respect for treaties by abrogating them one by one; it was not surprising that Pyongyang was nervous that the U.S. might also act in defiance of the 1953 armistice. In order to combat this perceived threat, the North released information that it was attempting to create more nuclear weapons, implying that it already had a few ready to launch.

Their nuclear weapons admission, or bluff, sent fear through the United States and caused a public relations calamity for the Bush White House. In the middle of planning an attack on Iraq, under the pretense of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, suddenly North Korea came out actually admitting they had nuclear weapons! This statement by the North was smartly released only after the U.S. was becoming bogged down in the Middle East.

The crisis worked effectively, as the United States began to have to consider the grievances of North Korea. More importantly, North Korea was able to bring its political issues to the forefront of the world press at a time when the United States could only wave a threatening stick at Pyongyang.

Furthermore, North Korea jabbed the sword even deeper into the heart of White House rhetoric when they claimed that Pyongyang reserved the right to preemptively attack hostile nations! Pyongyang's clever strategy turned Washington's preemption policy on its head and left the Bush administration without an adequate response.

Since then, the administration has offered some economic incentives to the North, in exchange for Pyongyang's disarmament. So far, the North has refused to budge and continues to head down the path of creating nuclear weapons. Because the United States is preoccupied with Iraq, Pyongyang seems to be holding out for the best deal possible. Through their nuclear weapon bargaining piece, they are trying to squeeze lucrative concessions out of the United States in exchange for Pyongyang's silence. In fact, this is such a concern to the administration that it has caused Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to constantly reassure that the United States is capable of fighting a war in Korea and Iraq at the same time; however, as we have seen through history, tough words such as Rumsfeld's are usually used to cover up falsities.

This is where the danger lies in the Bush administration's policy of arm bending diplomacy. North Korea, knowing that the Bush administration is trying to keep the North's issues on the backburner right now, will attempt to pressure the White House into giving up great concessions to Pyongyang. If the Bush administration refuses to meet the North's demands, then the North will probably just continue to work on building their nuclear arsenal. The North figures it is a no-lose situation. Either Pyongyang will secure large economic concessions from the United States, or they will increase their nuclear forces.

In the case that North Korea creates or increases their nuclear arsenal, it will simply provide them with even more bargaining chips for the future. It is more difficult for a powerful nation like the United States to manhandle a nuclear capable country, especially when 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed on its border. Even in the case of a conventional war, the North would not only be able to cause massive U.S. casualties, but would be able to decimate the South Korean capital of Seoul within hours since it lies so close to the border, well within the range of North Korean firepower. The South is well aware of this and is no doubt putting pressure on the United States to refrain from creating another crisis on the Korean peninsula.

So, while to the outside observer it may look as if North Korea is following an irrational policy, it is actually coherent and follows the model set forth by the Bush administration. That policy is the theory of power politics, where states use threats to coerce other states into diplomatic concessions. The simple danger is that the threat of preemption, intertwined in the general theory of power politics, can often lead to unexpected conflicts that quickly spiral out of control.

[Ash Pulcifer is a U.S. based analyst of international conflicts and is also a human rights activist. While he does not justify or accept the killing of civilians in warfare, he attempts to understand why groups or governments resort to such means in order to achieve their strategic objectives.]

Ash Pulcifer encourages your comments:  apulcifer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source,  http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to  http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

Website: http://www.yellowtimes.org
 

Read more about: globalisering

supplements
> indymedia.nl > search > archive > help > join > publish news > open newswire > disclaimer > chat
DISCLAIMER: Indymedia NL uses the 'open posting' principle to promote freedom of speech. The news (text, images, audio and video) posted in the open newswire of Indymedia NL remains the property of the author who posted it. The views in these postings do not necesseraly reflect the views of the editorial team of Indymedia NL. Furthermore, it is not always possible to guarantee the accuracy of the postings.