leroymoore

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

The Freeze-for-Freeze Solution: An Alternative to Nuclear War

In Justice, Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Peace, Politics, War on September 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm

 

By Gar Smith / Environmentalists Against War, WorldBeyondWar.org
http://worldbeyondwar.org/freeze-freeze-solution-alternative-nuclear-war/

On August 5, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster informed MSNBC that the Pentagon had plans to counter the “growing threat” from North Korea—by launching a “preventative war.”

Note: When someone armed with world-ending weapons is speaking, language is important.

For example: a “threat” is merely an expression. It may be annoying, or even provocative, but it is something that falls well short of a physical “attack.”

“Preventative war” is a euphemism for “armed aggression”—an action the International Criminal Court identifies as “the ultimate war crime.” The slippery phrase “preventative war” serves to transform the aggressor into a “potential” victim, responding to a perceived “future crime” by acting in “self-defense.”

The concept of “preventative violence” has a domestic counterpart. An investigation by London’s The Independent found that US police killed 1,069 civilians in 2016. Of those, 107 were unarmed. Most of these individuals died because of the concept of “preventative war.” The typical defense from the officers involved in deadly shootings was that they “felt threatened.” They opened fire because they “felt their lives were in danger.”

What is intolerable on the streets of America should be equally unacceptable when applied to any country within range of Washington’s globe-straddling weaponry.

In an interview on the Today Show, Sen. Lindsey Graham predicted: “There will be a war with North Korea over their missile program if they continue trying to hit America with an ICBM.”

Note: Pyongyang has not “tried to hit” the US: It has only launched unarmed, experimental test missiles. (Although, listening to Kim Jong-un’s heated, over-the-top rhetorical threats, one might think otherwise.)

Living in the Shadow of a Frightened Giant

For all of its unparalleled military might, the Pentagon has never been able to assuage Washington’s abiding suspicions that someone, somewhere, is plotting an attack. This fear of a constant “threat” from foreign forces is invoked to channel massive tides of tax dollars into an ever-expanding military/industrial pond. But policies of perpetual paranoia only make the world a more dangerous place.

On September 5, Russian President Vladimír Putin, responding to journalists’ questions about the worrisome face-off between the US and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), issued this warning: “[R]amping up military hysteria in such conditions is senseless; it’s a dead end. It could lead to a global, planetary catastrophe and a huge loss of human life. There is no other way to solve the North Korean Issue, save that peaceful dialogue.”

Putin dismissed the efficacy of Washington’s threat to impose even harsher economic sanctions, noting that the proud North Koreans would sooner “eat grass” than halt their nuclear weapons program because “they do not feel safe.”

In a commentary posted in January 2017, Pyongyang underscored the fears that prompted the DPRK to acquire its nuclear arsenal: “The Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya, after surrendering to the pressure from the US and the West, which were attempting to subvert their regime[s], could not avoid the fate of doom as a consequence of . . . giving up their nuclear program.”

Time and again, the DPRK has railed against the ongoing joint US/ROK military exercises staged along Korea’s contentious borders. The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) has characterized these events as “preparations for the second Korean War” and “a dress rehearsal for an invasion.”

“What can restore their security?” Putin asked. His answer: “The restoration of international law.”

Washington’s Nuclear Arsenal: Deterrent or Provocation?

Washington has expressed alarm that the latest long-range tests by the DPRK suggest that Pyongyang’s missiles (sans warhead, for now) may be able to reach the US mainland, 6,000 miles away.

Meanwhile, the US maintains its own long-established and launch-ready atomic arsenal of 450 Minuteman III ICBMs. Each can carry up to three nuclear warheads. At last count, the US had 4,480 atomic warheads at its disposal. With a range of 9,321 miles, Washington’s Minuteman missiles can deliver a nuclear blow to any target in Europe, Asia, South America, the Middle East, and most of Africa. Only Southern Africa and parts of the Antarctic are beyond the reach of America’s land-based ICBMs. (Add the Pentagon’s nuclear-armed submarines, and nowhere on Earth is beyond Washington’s nuclear reach.)

When it comes to defending its nuclear missile program, North Korea uses the same excuse as every other atomic power—the warheads and rockets are solely intended as a “deterrent.” It is basically the same argument employed by the National Rifle Association, which asserts the right to self-protection involves the right to bear arms and the right to use them in “self-defense.”

If the NRA were to apply this argument at the global/thermonuclear level, consistency would require that organization stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Kim Jong-un. The North Koreans are simply insisting on their right to “stand their ground.” They are only claiming the same status that the US grants to other existing nuclear powers—Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia.

But somehow, when “certain countries” express an interest in pursuing these weapons, a nuclear-armed missile is no longer a “deterrent”: It instantly becomes a “provocation” or a “threat.”

If nothing else, Pyongyang’s truculence has done the nuclear abolition movement a great service: it has demolished the argument that nuclear-tipped ICBMs are a “deterrent.”

North Korea Has Reason to Feel Paranoid

During the brutal years of the 1950-53 Korean War (called a “peace action” by Washington but remembered by survivors as “the Korean Holocaust”), American aircraft dropped 635,000 tons of bombs and 32,557 tons of napalm over North Korea, destroying 78 cities and obliterating thousands of villages. Some of the victims died from exposure to US biological weapons containing anthrax, cholera, encephalitis, and bubonic plague. It is now believed that as many as 9 million people––30% of the population—may have been killed during the 37-month-long bombardment.

Washington’s war on the North stands as one of the deadliest conflicts in human history.

The US blitz was so merciless that the Air Force eventually ran out of places to bomb. Left behind where the ruins of 8,700 factories, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, and more than a half-million homes. The Air Force also managed to bomb bridges and dams on the Yalu River, causing farmland floods that destroyed the country’s rice harvest, triggering additional deaths by starvation.

It is worth recalling that the first Korean War erupted when China honored a 1950 treaty obliging Beijing to defend the DPRK in the event of a foreign attack. (That treaty is still in effect.)

The Continued US Military Presence in Korea

The “Korean conflict” ended in 1953 with the signing of an armistice agreement. But the US never left South Korea. It built (and continues to build) a sprawling infrastructure of more than a dozen active military bases. The Pentagon’s military expansions inside Republic of Korea (ROK) are frequently met with dramatic eruptions of civilian resistance. (On September 6, 38 people in Seonju were injured during a confrontation between thousands of police and demonstrators protesting the presence of US missile interceptors.)

But most troubling to the North are the annual joint military exercises that deploy tens of thousands of US and ROK troops along the DPRK’s border to engage in live-fire exercises, marine assaults, and bombing runs that prominently feature nuclear-capable US B-1 Lancer bombers (dispatched from Anderson Airbase on Guam, 2,100 miles away) dropping 2,000-pound bunker-busters provocatively close to North Korean territory.

These annual and semi-annual military exercises are not a new strategic irritant on the Korean Peninsula. They began just 16 months after the signing of the armistice agreement. The US organized the first joint military deployment—”Exercise Chugi”—in November 1955 and the “war games” have continued, with various degrees of intensity, for 65 years.

Like every military exercise, the US-ROK maneuvers have left behind landscapes of scorched and bombed earth, bodies of soldiers inadvertently killed in mock-combat accidents, and vast profits reliably tendered to the companies that supply the weapons and ammunition expended during these martial extravaganzas.

In 2013, the North responded to these “show of force” maneuvers by threatening to “bury [a US warship] in the sea.” In 2014, Pyongyang greeted the joint-exercise by threatening “all out war” and demanding the US halt it’s “nuclear blackmail.”

The “largest ever” military drill was held in 2016. It lasted two-months, involved 17,000 US troops and 300,000 soldiers from the South. The Pentagon characterized the bombings, amphibious assaults, and artillery exercises as “non-provocative.” North Korea responded predictably, calling the maneuvers “reckless . . . undisguised nuclear war drills” and threatening a “preemptive nuclear strike.”

Following Donald Trump’s incendiary threat to strike Kim with “fire and fury like the world has never seen,” the Pentagon opted to bank the flames even higher by proceeding with its previously scheduled August 21-31 air, land, and sea exercise, Ulchi-Freedom Guardian. The verbal slugfest between the two combative leaders only intensified.

While most of the US media has spent the past months obsessing over North Korea’s nuclear program and its missile launches, there has been less reporting on Washington’s plans to “decapitate” the country by removing the Korean leader.

A “Wide Range of Options”: Assassination and Covert Ops

On April 7, 2917 NBC Nightly News reported that it had “learned exclusive details about the top secret, highly-controversial options that are being presented to the president for possible military action against North Korea.”

“It’s mandatory to present the widest possible array of options,” Nightly News’ Chief International Security and Diplomacy Analyst Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.) stated. “That’s what enables presidents to make the right decisions: when they see all the all the options on the table in front of them.”

But the “wide array of options” was dangerously narrow. Instead of considering diplomatic options, the only three options placed on the President’s table were:

Option 1:

Nuclear Weapons to South Korea

Option 2

“Decapitation”: Target and Kill

Option 3

Covert Action

Cynthia McFadden, NBC’s Senior Legal and Investigative Correspondent, laid out the three options. The first involved reversing a decades-old de-escalation treaty and shipping a new assortment of US nuclear weapons back to South Korea.

According to McFadden, the second option, the “decapitation” strike, was designed to “target and kill North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un and other senior leaders in charge of missiles and nuclear weapons.”

Stravridis, however, cautioned that “decapitation is always a tempting strategy when you’re faced with a highly unpredictable and highly dangerous leader.” (The words are freighted with a chilling irony given that the description fits Trump as well as Kim.) According to Stravridis, “The question is: what happens the day after you decapitate.”

The third option involves infiltrating South Korean troops and US Special Forces into the North to “take out key infrastructure” and possibly stage attacks on political targets.

The first option violates numerous nuclear nonproliferation agreements. The second and third options involve infringements of sovereignty as well as gross violations of international law.

Over the years, the Washington has used sanctions and military provocations to harass the North. Now that NBC News has been given the go-ahead to “normalize” the political assassination of a foreign leader by presenting Kim’s murder as a reasonable “option,” the geopolitical stakes have grown even higher.

http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/916621379597” width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Washington has imposed sanctions (a form of economic water-boarding) on a wide array of targets—Syria, Russia, Crimea, Venezuela, Hezbollah—with negligible results. Kim Jong-un is not the kind personality that responds well to sanctions. Kim has ordered the execution of more than 340 fellow Koreans since he assumed power in 2011. HIs victims have included government officials and family members. One of Kim’s favorite means of execution reportedly involves blowing victims to pieces with an anti-aircraft gun. Like Donald Trump, he’s use to getting his way.

And so, it is doubtful that overt US threats calling for Kim’s murder will do anything more than harden his determination to empower his military with “offsetting” weaponry that can “send a message” to Washington and to the tens of thousands of American soldiers surrounding North Korea to the south and east—in Japan and on Okinawa, Guam and other Pentagon-colonized islands in the Pacific.

The Fourth Option: Diplomacy

While the Pentagon cannot guarantee what impact its actions may have on the future, the State Department has significant data on what has worked in the past. It turns out that the Kim regime has not only approached Washington with invitations to negotiate an end to hostilities, but past administrations have responded and progress has been made.

In 1994, after four months of negotiations, President Bill Clinton and the DPRK signed an “Agreed Framework” to bring a halt to the North’s production of plutonium, a component of nuclear weapons. In exchange for abandoning three nuclear reactors and its controversial Yongbyon plutonium reprocessing facility, the US, Japan, and South Korea agreed to provide the DPRK with two light-water reactors and 500,000 metric tons of fuel oil a year to offset the energy lost while replacement reactors were constructed.

In January 1999, the DPRK agreed to meetings designed to deal with missile proliferation matters. In exchange, Washington agreed to remove economic sanctions imposed on the North. The talks continue through 1999 with the DPRK agreeing to halt its long-range missile program in exchange for a partial lifting of US economic sanctions.

In October 2000, Kim Jong Il sent a letter to President Clinton in a gesture designed to affirm the continued improvement of US-North Korean relations. Later, in an op-ed written for the New York Times, Wendy Sherman, who served as special adviser to the president and secretary of state for North Korea policy, wrote that a final agreement to terminate the DPRK’s medium- and long-range missile programs were “tantalizingly close” as the Clinton Administration came to an end.

In 2001, the arrival of a new president signaled an end to this progress. George W. Bush imposed new restrictions on negotiating with the North and publicly questioned whether Pyongyang was “keeping all terms of all agreements.” Bush’s sally was followed by Secretary of State Colin Powell’s brusque denial that “imminent negotiations are about to begin—that is not the case.”

On March 15, 2001, the DPRK sent a heated response, threatening to “take thousand-fold revenge” on the new administration for its “black-hearted intention to torpedo the dialogue between north and south [Korea].” Pyongyang also cancelled ongoing administrative talks with Seoul that had been intended to promote political reconciliation between the two estranged states.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, George W. Bush branded the North as part of his “Axis of Evil” and accused the government of “arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.”

Bush followed up by formally terminating Clinton’s “Agreed Framework” and halting the promised shipments of fuel oil. The DPRK responded by expelling United Nations weapons inspectors and restarting the Yongbyon reprocessing plant. Within two years, the DPRK was back in the business of producing weapons-grade plutonium and, in 2006, it conducted its first successful nuclear test.

It was an opportunity lost. But it demonstrated that diplomacy (although it takes attention and great patience) can work to accomplish peaceful ends.

“Dual Freeze”: A Solution that Could Work

Unfortunately, the current resident of the White House is an individual with a short attention span and is notoriously lacking in patience. Nonetheless, any avenue that takes our nation down a path not labeled “Fire and Fury,” would be a road best travelled. And, fortunately, diplomacy is not a forgotten art.

The most promising option is the so-called “Dual Freeze” plan (aka the “Freeze-for-Freeze” or “Double Halt”) recently endorsed by China and Russia. Under this tit-for-tat settlement, Washington would stop its massive (and massively costly) “invasion games” off North Korea’s border and shores. In exchange, Kim would agree to halt the development and testing of destabilizing nuclear weapons and missiles.

Most mainstream media consumers might be surprised to learn that, even before the China-Russia intervention, the North itself had repeatedly proposed a similar “Dual Freeze” solution to resolve the increasingly dangerous stand-off with the US. But Washington repeatedly refused.

In July 2017, when China and Russia partnered to endorse the “Dual Freeze” plan, the DPRK welcomed the initiative. During a June 21 TV interview, Kye Chun-yong, North Korea’s ambassador to India, declared: “Under certain circumstances, we are willing to talk in terms of freezing nuclear testing or missile testing. For instance, if the American side completely stops big, large-scale military exercises temporarily or permanently, then we will also temporarily stop.”
“As everybody knows, the Americans have gestured [toward] dialogue,” North Korea’s Deputy UN Ambassador Kim In-ryong told reporters. “But what is important is not words, but actions . . . . The rolling back of the hostile policy toward DPRK is the prerequisite for solving all the problems in the Korean peninsula . . . . Therefore, the urgent issue to be settled on Korean peninsula is to put a definite end to the US hostile policy toward DPRK, the root cause of all problems.”

On January 10, 2015, the KCNA announced that Pyonyang had approached the Obama Administration offering to “temporarily suspend nuclear tests that concerns the US [and] . . . sit face to face with the US.” In exchange, the North requested that the “US suspend joint military exercise temporarily.”

When there was no response, North Korea’s minister of foreign affairs made public note of the rebuff in a statement posted on March 2, 2015: “We already expressed our willingness to take a reciprocal measure in case that the US halts joint military exercise in and around South Korea. However, the US, from the very beginning of the New Year, outright rejected our sincere proposal and effort by announcing ‘additional sanction’ toward North Korea.”

When the Trump administration rejected the latest Russia-China “Freeze” proposal in July 2017, it explained its refusal with this argument: Why should the US halt its “lawful” military exercises in exchange for the North agreeing to abandon its “illicit” weapons activities?

However, the the US-ROK joint-exercises would only be “legal” if they were provably “defensive.” But, as past years (and the NBC leaks cited above) have shown, these exercises are clearly designed to prepare for internationally outlawed acts of aggression—including violations of national sovereignty and the possible political assassination of a head of state.

The diplomatic option remains open. Every other course of action threatens an escalation towards a potential thermonuclear clash.

The “Dual Freeze” seems a fair—and wise—solution. So far, Washington has dismissed Freeze-for-Freeze as “a non-starter.”

ACTIONS:

Tell Trump to Stop Threatening North Korea

Roots Action Petition: Sign Here.

Tell Your Senators: No Military Action Against North Korea

Write your Senators today insisting upon a diplomatic – rather than a military – solution to the conflict with North Korea. You can amplify your impact on this issue by calling your Senators as well. The Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) will connect you.

Gar Smith is an award-winning investigative journalist, Editor Emeritus of Earth Island Journal, co-founder of Environmentalists Against War, and author of Nuclear Roulette (Chelsea Green). His new book, The War and Environment Reader (Just World Books) will be published on October 3. He will be speaking at the World Beyond War three-day conference on “War and the Environment,” September 22-24 at the American University in Washington, DC. (For details, visit: http://worldbeyondwar.org/nowar2017.)

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.

Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate.

Sign up for these emails at https://actionnetwork.org/forms/articles-from-david-swanson.

Advertisements

Is a Nuclear War Inevitable?

In Nuclear abolition, Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Peace, Politics, War on September 7, 2017 at 7:04 am

By LeRoy Moore, Boulder Camera. Sunday, September 3. 2017

On August 8 President Donald Trump said if North Korea doesn’t stop threatening the U.S. it would be met with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” A spokesman for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un responded that this would be met with a “sea of fire.” These counter-threats present the greatest danger of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. But President John Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev were more levelheaded.

 

Is a nuclear war inevitable? Negotiations are under way, but publicly neither Trump nor Kim backs off. If a war breaks out, the more powerful U.S. can destroy North Korea, though U.S. analysts say North Korea has up to 60 nuclear weapons. Would a war be limited to these two countries? Other nuclear powers, such as China or Russia, may weigh in.

 

In even a limited war we may experience the “nuclear winter” broached by scientists in the 1980s. A nuclear exchange that strikes cities would put so much smoke into the atmosphere that the Sun’s warmth can’t reach us, temperatures drop and the world is plunged into a decade-long nuclear winter – so cold no food can be produced. Millions may die.

If this is what we face, why not get rid of nuclear weapons? Here are a few answers. First, in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1995) Gar Alperovitz shows that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary, because Japan was already negotiating its surrender with the Soviet Union (at the time a neutral party). This was known to decision-makers in Washington. The real reason to use the bombs was not to defeat the Japanese or save the lives of U.S. troops but to intimidate the Soviets.

Second, after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was well known that tens of thousands of innocent non-military people had died, including “all those children” mentioned by a repentant President Truman. Had the U.S. lost World War II, its leaders, like those of Germany and Japan, would have been punished for violating the “laws of war.” But victors aren’t punished.

Third, not long after the war ended, the Soviets proposed that all nuclear materials be deposited with the U.N. so bombs could not be built. The U.S. disagreed, so it could continue as the strongest power. The Soviets soon had bombs of their own. Thus began the arms race.

Fourth, Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 obligates parties to the treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date . . . and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” The language is clear, but none of the five nuclear states at the time (U.S., USSR, England, France and China) acted to abolish their nuclear weapons. Now, 46 years later, four more nations have nuclear weapons – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. None act to eliminate their weapons. International lawyer Richard Falk, in his book Power Shift (2016), calls the Non-Proliferation Treaty a sham.

Fifth, on July 7, 2017, at a U.N. session 122 nations – 63 per cent of all countries – adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It prohibits the development, production, possession, testing and use of nuclear weapons. These weapons are unconditionally stigmatized as standing outside international humanitarian law. What is commonly called the “Ban Treaty” will enter into force as soon as it is signed by 50 nations. It opens to signatures on September 20. Several countries, including the U.S., say they will not sign.

The folly continues. Given this sad history, I often think that only the actual use of nuclear weapons by one or more parties will bring the human race to its senses. Must we pay the high price of nuclear war between the U.S. and North Korea to turn the world away from these harmful weapons?

A wiser approach is for the United States, which took the lead of introducing nuclear weapons, now to lead the world to abolish them. If the U.S. signs the Ban Treaty, other nations will follow. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is long overdue. These weapons should be abolished before their use abolishes us.

 

Please sign and share with others this petition calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Go to this link https://actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-us-to-join-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-possession

 

LeRoy Moore, PhD, is a consultant with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, CO.

An Incoherent Strategy on North Korea

In Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Peace, Politics, War on September 7, 2017 at 6:59 am

Editorial Boaard, New York Times, Sept. 6, 2017

The North Korean nuclear threat is worsening by the day. Tougher economic sanctions have not accomplished much, if anything. Nor has President Trump’s bellicosity. Sunday’s nuclear test was the North’s most powerful blast in the 11 years it has been detonating nuclear weapons. There are signs of another test soon.

Mr. Trump’s approach has so far consisted of sanctions, pressure on China — North Korea’s chief ally — and taunts against the government in Pyongyang. These messages have not only produced zero positive results but they have also sowed confusion about his intentions. The president and his team seem unable or unwilling to put together a realistic and coherent strategy that goes beyond pressure tactics and harsh rhetoric to include a serious effort to engage the North Koreans.

There have been some inexplicable errors along the way. The latest was to pick a fight with South Korea, an ally whose cooperation is vital to resolving the North Korea crisis. At a moment when South Korea needs to be able to trust America’s commitments, Mr. Trump has unwisely hinted at abrogating an important bilateral trade deal, thus potentially ceding more economic ground to China, and accused its new president, Moon Jae-in, of “appeasement” toward North Korea. The South Koreans are so upset, there is talk among some of developing their own nuclear weapons, which would compound the present insanity.

Containing the North is not a simple task. President Bill Clinton worked out a deal that froze the North’s plutonium program for eight years, only to see the agreement collapse under George W. Bush. The North’s nuclear program is now far more advanced, making getting rid of it, or even containing it, a lot harder.

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, is certainly playing a dangerous game; Nikki Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, warned Monday that Mr. Kim is “begging for war.” But unless he is completely deranged he must know that war with the United States would be suicide. He seems to regard nuclear weapons as his only guarantee of survival in the face of American hostility.

He has reason to worry: Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, gave up his nascent nuclear program in 2003 in return for promises of economic integration with the West. But when rebels rose up against him, he was bombed by the United States and its allies, then executed by rebels.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have insisted that the United States is not aiming for regime change. But it could be doing considerably more to lower the temperature and lead the way to a more peaceful solution. On Sunday, Mr. Mattis seemed intent on doing just the opposite, promising a “massive military response” in return for “any threat” — not just an attack but the threat of an attack — against the United States; its territories, like Guam; or its allies. And while Mr. Mattis and Mr. Tillerson have both hinted at dialogue with the North, Mr. Trump tweeted that “talking is not the answer!”

Ms. Haley pressed the Security Council this week to impose an oil ban on North Korea. That’s a likely nonstarter, since it would mostly affect China, which is the North’s primary oil supplier and has long resisted such a ban because it fears it could set off a collapse of the Kim regime, a flood of refugees into China and the reunification of the Korean Peninsula under South Korea. Many experts also doubt the usefulness of sanctions as a tool to force the North to abandon its nuclear weapons, which Pyongyang sees as the only real leverage it has on the global stage.

Ms. Haley’s boss seems no less enamored of the China card, threatening to end trade with China if it does not curtail trade with the North — a completely empty threat given the powerful economic ties between China and the United States and China’s pivotal role in the global economy. Mr. Trump would be better advised to work with China on a diplomatic initiative that could include the threat of tougher sanctions but would offer the North a deal in which Pyongyang would freeze its nuclear and missile tests in exchange for some American concessions, like a reduction in military exercises.

It is not at all clear that Mr. Kim is interested in talking. But Mr. Trump needs to test the possibility before design or miscalculation leads to war.

 

What the Media isn’t Telling You About North Korea’s Missile Tests

In Human rights, Justice, Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Peace, Politics, War on September 5, 2017 at 10:09 am

By Mike Whitney
September 04, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Here’s what the media isn’t telling you about North Korea’s recent missile tests.

Last Monday, the DPRK fired a Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile over Japan’s Hokkaido Island. The missile landed in the waters beyond the island harming neither people nor property.

The media immediately condemned the test as a “bold and provocative act” that showed the North’s defiance of UN resolutions and “contempt for its neighbors.” President Trump sharply criticized the missile test saying:

“Threatening and destabilizing actions only increase the North Korean regime’s isolation in the region and among all nations of the world. All options are on the table.”

What the media failed to mention was that, for the last three weeks, Japan, South Korea and the US have been engaged in large-scale joint-military drills on Hokkaido Island and in South Korea. These needlessly provocative war games are designed to simulate an invasion of North Korea and a “decapitation” operation to remove (Re: Kill) the regime. North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong-un has asked the US repeatedly to end these military exercises, but the US has stubbornly refused. The US reserves the right to threaten anyone, anytime and anywhere even right on their doorstep. It’s part of what makes the US exceptional. Check out this excerpt from an article at Fox News:

“More than 3,500 American and Japanese troops kicked off a weeks-long joint military exercise Thursday against the backdrop of an increasingly belligerent North Korean regime. The exercise, known as Northern Viper 17, will take place on Hokkaido — Japan’s northern-most main island — and will last until Aug. 28….

“We are improving our readiness not only in the air, but as a logistical support team,” Col. R. Scott Jobe, the 35th Fighter Wing commander, said in a statement. “We are in a prime location for contingency purposes and this exercise will only build upon our readiness in the case a real-world scenario occurs.” (US, Japanese troops begin joint military exercise amid North Korea threat”, Fox News)

Monday’s missile test (which flew over Hokkaido Island) was conducted just hours after the war games ended. The message was clear: The North is not going to be publicly humiliated and slapped around without responding. Rather than show weakness, the North demonstrated that it was prepared to defend itself against foreign aggression. In other words, the test was NOT a “bold and provocative act” (as the media stated) but a modest and well thought-out response by a country that has experienced 64 years of relentless hectoring, sanctions, demonization and saber rattling by Washington. The North responded because the Washington’s incitements required a response. End of story.

And the same is true of the three short-range ballistic missiles the North tested last week. (two of which apparently fizzled out shortly after launching.) These tests were a response to the 3 week-long joint-military drills in South Korea which involved 75,000 combat troops accompanied by hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles, landing craft, heavy artillery, a full naval flotilla and flyovers by squadrons of state of the art fighters and strategic bombers. Was the North supposed to sit on its hands while this menacing display of brute military force took place right under its nose???

Of course not. Imagine if Russia engaged in a similar operation over the border in Mexico while the Russian fleet conducted “live fire” drills three miles outside of San Francisco Bay. What do you think Trump’s reaction would be?

He’d blow those boats out of the water faster than you could say “Jackie Robinson”, right?

So why the double standard when it comes to North Korea? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

North Korea should be applauded for showing that it won’t be intimidated by the schoolyard bully. Kim knows that any confrontation with the US will end badly for the North, even so, he hasn’t caved in or allowed himself to be pushed around by the blustering, browbeating thugs in the White House. Booyah, Kim.

By the way, Trump’s response to Monday’s missile test was barely covered in the mainstream media, and for good reason. Here’s what happened two days later:

On Wednesday, a US-led flight-group of F-35B fighters, F-15 fighters and B-1B bombers conducted military operations over a training range east of Seoul. The B-1B’s, which are low-altitude nuclear bombers, dropped their dummy-bombs on the site and then returned to their home base. The show of force was intended to send a message to Pyongyang that Washington is unhappy with the North’s ballistic missile testing project and is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the North if it fails to heed Washington’s diktats.

So Washington is prepared to nuke the North if they don’t straighten up and do as they are told?

It sure looks that way, but who really knows? In any event, Kim has no choice but to stand firm. If he shows any sign of weakness, he knows he’s going to end up like Saddam and Gaddafi. And that, of course, is what’s driving the hyperbolic rhetoric; the North wants to avoid the Gaddafi scenario at all cost. (BTW, the reason Kim has threatened to fire missiles at the waters surrounding Guam is because Guam is the home of Anderson Airforce Base which is the point-of-origin for the B-1B nuclear-capable bombers that have been making threatening flyovers on the Korean Peninsula for some time now. The North feels like it has to respond to that existential threat.

Wouldn’t it help if the media mentioned that fact or does it better serve their agenda to make it look like Kim is barking mad by lashing out against the ‘totally innocent’ United States, a country that only seeks to preserve the peace wherever it goes?

Give me a break!
It is so hard to find anything in the media that doesn’t reflect Washington’s bias and hostility. Surprisingly, there was pretty decent article at CBS News last week written by a former Western intelligence officer with decades of experience in Asia. It’s the only article I’ve found that accurately explains what’s really going on beyond the propaganda. Check it out:

“Prior to President Trump’s inauguration, North Korea made it clear it was prepared to give the new U.S. administration time to review the policy and come up with something better than President Obama’s. The only wrinkle was that if the U.S. went full-steam ahead with its annual joint exercises with South Korea (especially if that were accompanied by more talk of “decapitation” and more flights of strategic bombers over the Korean peninsula), the North would react strongly.

In short, the U.S. did, and the North reacted.

Behind-the-scenes contacts went up and down, but couldn’t get traction. In April, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un paraded new missiles as a warning, to no effect. The regime launched the new systems, one after another. Still, Washington’s approach didn’t change.” (Analysis: Pyongyang’s view of the North Korea-U.S. crisis”, CBS News)

Okay, so now we know the truth: The North gave it their best shot and came up snakeeyes, mainly because Washington doesn’t want to negotiate, they’d rather twist arms (Russia and China), tighten the embargo and threaten war. That’s Trump’s solution. Here’s more from the same piece:

“On July 4, after North Korea’s first successful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch, Kim sent a public signal that the North could put the nuclear and missile programs “on the table” if the U.S. changed its approach.

The U.S. did not, so the North launched another ICBM, very deliberately deeming it a warning to the U.S. that they were to be taken seriously. Still, more B-1 bombers flew over the Peninsula, and the U.N. Security Council passed new sanctions.” (CBS News)

So, the North was ready to do some serious horse-trading, but the US balked. Kim probably heard what a wheeler dealer Trump was and figured they could work something out. But it hasn’t happen. Trump has turned out to be a bigger bust than Obama, which is pretty bad. He not only refuses to negotiate but he also delivers bellicose threats almost every day. This isn’t what the North was expecting. They were expecting a “non interventionist” leader who might be receptive to a trade-off.

The current situation has left Kim with no good options. He can either cave in and terminate his missile program altogether or increase the frequency of the tests and hope that they pave the way for negotiations. Kim chose the latter.

Did he make a bad choice?

Maybe.

Is it a rational choice?

Yes.

The North is betting that its nuclear weapons programs will be valuable bargaining chits in future negotiations with the United States. The North has no plan to nuke the west coast of the United States. That’s ridiculous! That doesn’t accomplish anything. What they want is to preserve their regime, procure security guarantees from Washington, lift the embargo, normalize relations with the South, extricate the US from the political affairs of the peninsula, and (hopefully) end the irritating and endlessly provocative 64 year US occupation. Yankee go home. Please.

Bottom line: The North is ready to deal. They want negotiations. They want to end the war. They want to put this whole nightmare behind them and get on with their lives. But Washington won’t let them because Washington likes the status quo. Washington wants to be a permanent feature in South Korea so it can encircle Russia and China with lethal missile systems and expand its geopolitical grip bringing the world closer to nuclear Armageddon.

That’s what Washington wants, and that’s why the crisis on the peninsula will continue to boil.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
This article was first published by Counterpunch –

The Road to Charlottesville: Reflections on 21st Century U.S. Capitalist Racism

In Human rights, Justice, Politics, Public Health, Race on September 3, 2017 at 7:06 am

by PAUL STREET

 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/25/the-road-to-charlottesville-reflections-on-21st-century-u-s-capitalist-racism/

 

Racism’s Surface and Deeper Levels

The United States, where median Black household wealth is less than 7 cents on the white household dollar and where the mild slogan “Black lives matter” is considered controversial, is still very much a racist nation. Grasping the nature of this national racism in 21st century means looking at the different levels on which race operates here. One level is at the nation’s discursive and symbolic surface. It is about language, imagery, signs, the color of elite personnel, representation, and, well, symbols.

A different and deeper level is institutional and structural. It’s about how labor markets, the financial sector, the real estate industry, the educational system, the criminal justice complex, the military state, the corporate system, the dominant media, and capitalism more broadly all work to deepen, maintain, and/or reduce racial oppression and inequality.

At the surface and symbolic level, racism has experienced significant defeats in the United States since the rise of the Civil Rights Movement in the middle and late 1950s. Open public bigotry has been largely defeated in the nation’s corporate-crafted public culture. Prejudiced whites face public humiliation when they voice openly racist sentiments in a nation that took “Whites Only” signs down half a century ago. Favorably presented Black faces are visible in high and highly public places across the national media and political landscape. The United States, the land of slavery, put a Black family in the White House in November of 2008.

Even in the South, a racially mixed Black couple now does not generally have to fear white violence and insults as they walk down a city street. The formerly all-white University of Kentucky basketball team now routinely competes for the NCAA championship with nearly all-Black teams before tens of thousands of screaming white fans and white cheerleaders. Black players dominate on the perennial college football champion in the heart of Dixie – the Alabama Crimson Tide. Nightly television news teams are racially mixed across metropolitan America. Images of smart and handsome Black people are standard in commercial advertising, public relations, and human resources programs.

At the deeper institutional and societal level, however, racism is alive and well beneath the public and representational surface. It persists in the more impersonal and the more invisible operation of social and institutional forces and processes in ways that “just happen” to reproduce Black disadvantage. This deeper racism is so ingrained in the social, political, and institutional sinews of capitalist America that it is taken for granted – barely noticed by the mainstream media and other social commentators. It includes widely documented racial bias in real estate sales and rental and home lending; the funding of schools largely on the basis of local property wealth; the excessive use of high-stakes standardized test-based neo-Dickensian “drill” and grill curriculum and related zero-tolerance disciplinary practices in predominantly black public schools; the concentration of black children into over-crowded and hyper-segregated, pre-incarceratory ghetto schools where a highly disproportionate share of the kids are deeply poor; rampant and widely documented racial discrimination in hiring and promotion; the racist “War on Drugs” and the related campaign of racially hyper-disparate mass black arrest, incarceration and criminal marking. The technically color-blind stigma of a prison history and felony record is “the New N word” for millions of Black Americans subject to numerous “new Jim Crow” barriers to employment, housing, educational and other opportunities.

Place and Race

Persistent de facto residential and educational race apartheid/segregation is a very underestimated underpinning of the institutional racism that lives on beneath the “color-blind” mythology supported by the rise of highly successful and publicly visible Black Americans like Oprah Winfrey and the Obamas. This is because place of dwelling is strongly connected to economic status and opportunity. As sociologists Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton noted in their important 1998 book American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass “housing markets…distribute much more than a place to live; they also distribute any good or resource that is correlated with where one lives,.” The relevant goods and resources include jobs, education, safety, access to green spaces, civic community, healthy food, public and social services, and wealth in the form of home equity.

By concentrating poor and working class Black people in a restricted number of geographical places, including “downstate” (in Illinois) and “upstate” (in New York and Michigan) prisons , U.S. de facto race apartheid reinforces Blacks’ persistently disproportionate presence in the lowest socioeconomic places. It also renders Black experience largely invisible to most whites. This makes many Caucasian Americans susceptible to fantastically exaggerated and socially decontextualized media-generated notions of Black success and power (LeBron James, Oprah Winfrey, and Barack Obama) and – on the evening news, often delivered by “good Black” newscasters – to equally inflated images of “bad Black” criminality and “thuggery.”

Slavery Lives

Another critical and underestimated part of the societal racism that lives on beneath the representational and symbolic surface is the steadfast refusal of the white majority nation to acknowledge that the long (multi-century) history of Black chattel slavery – the vicious torture system of mass racist labor exploitation (itself the key to the early rise of American industrial capitalism, as the historian Edward Baptist has shown) that the Confederacy arose to sustain in 1861 and which prevailed across the U.S. South until the Civil War – and its Jim Crow aftermath are intimately related to the nation’s stark racial disparities today. There is something significantly racist about the widespread white assumption that the white majority United States owes Black America nothing really in the way of special, ongoing reparation for the steep and singular Black disadvantages that have resulted from centuries of overt, explicitly racist, and brutal oppression and exploitation. As anyone who studies capitalism in a smart and honest way knows, what economic actors get from the present and future so-called “free market” is very much about what and how much they bring to that market from the past. And what whites and blacks bring from the living past to the supposedly “color-blind” and “equal opportunity” market of the post-Civil Rights present (wherein the dominant neoliberal authorities and ideology purport to have gone beyond “considerations of race”) is still significantly shaped by not-so “ancient” decades and centuries of explicit racial oppression. Given what is well known about the relationship between historically accumulated resources and current and future success, the very distinction between past and present racism ought to be considered part of the ideological superstructure of contemporary white supremacy.

Even if U.S. capitalism was being conducted without racial discrimination – and vast volumes and data demonstrate that it is not (see my own discussion here) there would still be the question of all the poker chips that white America – super-rich white capitalist America in particular – has stacked up on its side of the table over centuries of brutal theft from Black America. Those surplus chips are not quaintly irrelevant hangovers from “days gone by.” They are living, accumulated weapons of racial inequality in the present and future. (For a more detailed discussion of this question, please see my recent Truthdig essay, “A Lesson on Slavery for White America”)

Not Glass Half-Full

It is tempting, perhaps, to see America’s split race decision – anti-racist victory on the surface and doggedly persistent racial disparity and oppression underneath – as a case of glass half-empty versus glass half-full. It’s more dark and complicated than that. For, perversely enough, the deeper level of racism may be deepened by surface-level Civil Rights victories insofar as those victories and achievements have served to encourage the great toxic illusion that, as Derrick Bell once put it, “the indolence of blacks rather than the injustice of whites explains the socioeconomic gaps separating the races.”

It’s hard to blame millions of white people for believing that racism is dead in America when U.S. public life is filled with repeated affirmations of the integration and equality ideals and paeans to the nation’s purported remarkable progress towards achieving it and when we regularly celebrate great American victories over surface-level racism (particularly over the open racial segregation and terror of the South). As the Black law professor Sheryl Cashin noted in 2004, five years before the existence of a first black U.S. president, there are [now] enough examples of successful middle- and upper-class class African-Americans “to make many whites believe that blacks have reached parity…The fact that some blacks now lead powerful mainstream institutions offers evidence to whites that racial barriers have been eliminated; [that] the issue now is individual effort . . . The odd black family on the block or the Oprah effect — examples of stratospheric black success,” Cashin wrote, “feed these misperceptions, even as relatively few whites live among and interact daily with blacks of their own standing.”

One of the many ways in which Barack Obama’s presidency was problematic for the cause of racial justice is the way it proved to be something of a last nail in the coffin for many white Americans’ already weak willingness to acknowledge that racism is still a major problem for Black Americans. This is something that Martin Luther King, Jr. anticipated to some degree. “Many whites hasten to congratulate themselves,” King noted in 1967, “on what little progress [black Americans] have made. I’m sure,” King opined, “that most whites felt that with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all race problems were automatically solved. Most white people are so removed from the life of the average Negro,” King added, “there has been little to challenge that assumption” (emphasis added).

Note the importance of segregated experience in King’s reflection half a century ago. The media image of black triumph and equality trumps the reality of persistent racial inequality in white minds so easily thanks in part to the simple fact that whites have little regular contact with actual, ordinary black Americans and little understanding of the very different separate and unequal ways in which most Blacks’ experience life in the United States. This is one of many ways in spatial and residential and school segregation – all still quite pronounced in the U.S. – matters a great deal.

More than just feeding illusions that racism has been overcome, the victories over surface-level racism and the related celebration of Black success in the reigning media-politics culture have helped feed the illusory belief that Blacks are getting more money and power than whites – that Black Americans are unfairly “getting over” on whites thanks to the nefarious actions of “liberal and left elites.” Poor, working-class, and middle-class whites who are struggling to keep their heads above water and not become “surplus Americans” (Charles Derber) in neoliberal New Gilded Age America (where half the population is poor or near-poor and the top tenth of the upper 1 Percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent while white working class life expectancy has gone into a chilling decline thanks to rampant alcoholism, opiate addiction, and related gun suicide) have shockingly little real-life contact with the nation’s disproportionately poor and struggling Black population. They do, however, regularly view images of wealthy Black celebrities and watch news broadcast by racially mixed and affluent talking heads. To many whites, these surface-level Black victories are no small status insult added to class-based economic injury. As the great Black American Marxist W.E.B. DuBois once noted, racism has long granted the white working-class a false but potent compensatory “psychological wage” of whiteness: the belief that while one may occupy a relatively low and insecure position in capitalist America one was at least more elevated and honored than “them”: that is, than Blacks.

To Defend “the Largest and Most Powerful System of Slavery in the Modern World”

This is essential context for understanding the terrible events in Virginia two Fridays and Saturdays ago. The shameful events there followed the decisions of the liberal University of Virginia-hosting campus down of Charlottesville to take down a statue of the Confederate War General Robert E. Lee and to rename the park in which that statue sits “Emancipation Park.” At the one level, the conflict is symbolic. Make no mistake: many of not most of the virulent racists (including Ku Klux Klan members and neo-Nazis) who showed up the “Unite the Right” rally to protest Charlottesville’s courageous civic decisions would love to see Black chattel slavery re-instituted across the U.S. today. But most white defenders of the southern Confederate symbols claim that they are about “culture,” an appreciation of “history,” and “regional” identity, and a belief in “states’ rights,” not slavery. That’s how the history Confederacy and the Civil War are still taught in most southern U.S high schools to this day.

Falsely taught, I should say, for the simple textbook historical fact of the matter is that the Confederacy was formed to preserve, by any means deemed necessary, the South’s “peculiar institution” – the arch-racist and mass-murderous torture and exploitation regime of Black Chattel Slavery. The Confederacy was a secession government formed among southern states whose ruling elites had determined that the election of Abraham Lincoln spelled the end of their vicious slave system. As the retired University of Virginia historian Edward Ayers told the “P”BS NewsHour last eleven days ago, “even if …individual [Confederate] soldiers were not slaveholders [plenty were- P.S.], they were fighting to defend a nation that was based on slavery… The fact is, had they won, you would have had an independent nation overseeing the largest and most powerful system of slavery in the modern world.”

The Road to Charlottesville

But beneath the historical argument at the symbolic surface, three forces drove the madness of the racist white nationalists who flocked to Charlottesville, including a young man from Ohio, were three basic forces. The first is a deeply fear-based sense that Blacks are “getting over” on them, violating the “psychological wage” and threatening to obliterate good hard-working white Americans with the help of white middle and upper class liberal and left elites. The nationalists tellingly chanted “you will not replace us” – as if Robert E. Lee had been turned down on a job or college application because of affirmative action – as they marched through the University of Virginia campus. Their fear is rooted in the very real and long-running neoliberal global-capitalist assault on working- and middle-class economic security, a persistent racial-spatial apartheid that makes real Black lives largely invisible to most whites, and in an exaggerated celebration of Black advancement and success that oddly combined with an equally exaggerated reporting of Black criminality in the dominant media that provides most whites their main images of Black America. It reflects the underlying and interrelated, racially toxic impacts of capitalist class rule, racial segregation (persistent American race apartheid), and corporate media

The second driving force is the right-wing, fascist, white-supremacist, and “alt-right” (neofascist) political media, from FOX News and talk radio to Alex Jones and Breitbart and the Websites of the shockingly large number of white nationalist and neo-Nazi hate groups themselves (see the Southern Poverty Law Center’s chilling “Hate Map” for a geographical mapping and naming of the nation’s many white hate groups, very disproportionately concentrated in former Confederate states). These virulent manufacturers of “blood and soil” white nationalism fan the flames of white racial sentiment, feeding the paranoid-style conspiratorial sense that a nefarious liberal and Left elite (replete with back-stabbing white “race traitors”) is pushing whites down while elevating people of color – who are slated to out-number white Americans by 2050- above them. The white hate groups have, incidentally, killed significantly more Americans on U.S. soil than any Islamic extremist forces in the post-9/11 era. They are the leading agents of lethal terrorism in the U.S.

The Imperial Wizard in the White House

The third driving force has been the quasi-fascistic Trump phenomenon and presidency. There’s was something naïve about liberal calls for Trump to be more forceful and concerned for national racial healing and unity in his response to the fascist protests and violence in Charlottesville. This is a president, son of a man arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally, who entered the last presidential sweepstakes by advancing the ultimate racist “blood and soil” argument that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. As a real estate developer, Trump was heard saying that he didn’t want Black people handling his money (he preferred Jews in that role, he said) and was sued repeatedly for racist housing discrimination. As a presidential candidate, Herr Donald:

+ Refused to disavow the support he received from the former Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Grand Wizard David Duke and otherwise failed to properly distance himself from the Klan.

+ Offered to pay the legal bills of a white man who viciously sucker-punched a black protester at a Trump rally.

+ Responded to the racial turbulence sparked by repeated video-captured police killings of Black Americans and the rise of Black Lives Matter by calling for the “restor[ation of] law and order” to “control our cities” and for a “national stop and frisk law”—that is, for a declaration of national racist martial law.

+ Continued his noxious backing for the malicious racist railroading of the “Central Park Five”—five young black men who were wrongfully convicted (with Trump leading the charge) of raping a white woman in New York City in 1989. (The subsequently exonerated five spent years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit).

+ Gave a commanding position in his campaign to Steve Bannon, the director of Breitbart, an openly white-nationalist, paranoid-style and alt-right (proto-fascistic) website.

+ Absurdly charged without evidence and in so many words that people of color would commit massive voter fraud in the 2016 president election.

As president, Trump appointed one of the nation’s leading elected racists (Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions) as Attorney General (of all things) and kept the white-nationalist “populist” Bannon and Steve Miller on as top political advisors. He appointed the Hungarian fascist Sebastian Gorka, as his top “Counter-Terrorism adviser” and hired Gorka’s anti-Muslim wife Katherine as a top “policy adviser” in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He has exhibited a practically psychotic obsession with dismissing anything and everything remotely positive that might be associated with the nation’s first Black president. He has repeated the preposterous, racially loaded voter fraud charge, ridiculously claiming to have won the popular vote but for ballot shenanigans. (The charge turns history on its head, Orwell-style: Trump owned his victory in key battle ground states to the legal and illegal suppression of non-white votes). The Trump administration is actively stripping away civil rights protections and appointing enemies of racial justice and equality to a federal bench that is being made over the image of the right-wing Federalist Society. It is even turning the Orwellian table on race regarding college admissions by “preparing,” the New York Times reports, “to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.”

Trump has given the white-nationalist movement good reason to think that they have their first real champion in the White House. Of course Trump has failed to properly condemn white supremacy, bigotry and Nazism and cloaked his condemnation of the racist violence in Charlottesville with dog-whistles to the “alt-right.” Trump isn’t merely “reluctant to alienate [white] backlash voters, who are among his most loyal supporters” (E.J. Dionne). He is himself a backlashing white nationalist, albeit an atypically super-wealthy one. Expecting heartfelt moral leadership on racial justice (or anything else) from Donald Trump is like expecting a beagle to write a respectable doctoral thesis on particle physics. It’s like expecting me to become a starting pitcher for the Chicago White Sox.

Towards Truth and Reconciliation

What should be done? Miller and the Gorkas and other vicious racist white nationalists in the White House need to follow Bannon out the door, either voluntarily or not. So does the shameful Orange Beast and Imperial Wizard Donald Trump, who has become a grave nuclear threat to national and global security (the former top national U.S. intelligence official James Clapper is right about that, darkly enough) and who is very possibly now fantasizing about how he can enlist the nation’s vast white police state in the suspension of the 2020 elections on the pretext of a civil emergency or a corrupted voting system. (Recall that Trump would promise to honor the results of the 2016 election only if he won. He would likely refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of an Electoral College count not in his favor in 2020).

The neo-fascist white right-wing needs to be disarmed, its hate-mongering leaders silenced and placed along with their followers in psychological treatment programs like those run by “Life After Hate”– a highly successful organization run by a recovered former leading white supremacist. Trump’s DHS recently slashed a grant the Obama administration had slated for “Life After Hate.” That grant should be restored and dramatically expanded.

We need to convene a national truth and reconciliation commission on the racist crimes committed against Black people in British colonial North America and in the U.S. from original British settlement through the present day. A key mission behind such a commission would be to educate Americans on the difference between getting a few Black faces in high places and real racial equality and justice. Other key themes would include the living relevance of centuries of Black chattel slavery for understanding contemporary racial inequality; the role of segregation in reducing Black opportunity and making Black experience invisible; and the ways that American racial oppression has harmed ordinary middle and working class white Americans as well as Blacks. It has done so by undermining their ability to join with Blacks in forming powerful grassroots organizations to fight the capitalist elite and by offering them the poison and false-compensatory “psychological wage” of whiteness.

It is long past time to massively de-incarcerate Black America, transferring billions of dollars spent on surveilling, arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating (the racist Trump is an active champion for the private-, for-profit prison industry), and branding Black people into meeting the vast swath of dire social needs that go neglected in contemporary America: schools, housing, health care, green space, and so much more.

We need to begin accelerated racial literacy and empathy programs to bring white Americans into Black and other nonwhite communities to confront the harsh realities of American racial apartheid and disparity – and to make real and un-threatening human, face-face connections with real Black and other nonwhite people. (“Life After Hate” does good work in this vein). This will counter the exaggerated images of Black success and wealth and Black criminality purveyed in the dominant media and to put racially blind whites in contact with real and all to ghettoized and oppressed Black lives.

Beyond just tearing down Confederate (Slave Power) symbols and monuments, we need to litter the nation and especially the South with signs and monuments reminding ordinary Americans of the monumental racist torture regime and holocaust that was Black chattel slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath. Lynching sites should be marked, with the names of victims and the circumstances surrounding their deaths included. Places where Black slaves and neo-slaves were bought, sold, whipped, exploited, worked to death, tortured, raped, and beaten should be gravely commemorated with names and plaques providing basic historical descriptions of what happened there. Done right, such a monument construction project – to be built by racially mixed teams under Black supervision – would create literally thousands of structures across the country and not just in the South.

The commission must be charged among other things with the design of a reasonable and properly targeted and serious program of racial reparations for the monumental injustices imposed by centuries of racial oppression from slavery through Jim Crow oppression, ghettoization, and the age of racist mass incarceration and criminal branding. It is long past time for a monumental payback – paid out of giant taxes on the absurdly rich U.S. financial and corporate elite. The class specificity of the payment us critical. We shouldn’t charge lower- and working-class whites a penny for the sins of slavery. American racial oppression, it should always be remembered, has harmed ordinary middle and working class white Americans as well as Blacks. The point bears repetition and elaboration. From the nation’s colonial origins through the present, the Machiavellian, ruling class-imposed color line (see Edmund Morgan’s truly classic 1976 study American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia) has hurt ordinary whites as well as people of color. Elite-crafted racism has undermined working-class and poor whites’ willingness and ability to join with Blacks and other nonwhites in forming the powerful grassroots alliances and solidarities required to wrest a durably decent living and a democratic society from the Wealthy Few. In the place of these necessities, the pervasive and living culture of racism – so doggedly persistent that (to repeat) the mild phrase “Black lives matter” is somehow controversial more than half a century after the passage of the Civil Rights Act – has offered poor and working-class whites the poison, false-compensatory “psychological wage” of whiteness. The always embattled actual American Left has always said something else: “Black and White Unite and Fight” in solidary against the ruling class masters. That slogan was no small reflection of how the American industrial workers movement was built in the 1930s and 1940s.

Unlikely under capitalism….

Can reparations (due also to Native Americans and nations abroad where untold millions/billions of people have been devastated by U.S. imperialism) be properly and meaningfully introduced under the existing U.S. regime of class rule called capitalism? Almost certainly not – as with the demand for a shift to an ecologically sustainable economy and society. It must therefore be considered a revolutionary demand and be combined with multi-racial working-class struggle to remove the “One Percent” (a catchy euphemism for the capitalist ruling class) not just from its wealth but also and above all from its command of the structuring and purpose of “our” (their) political economy. It must be interwoven with the struggle for the broad redistribution of wealth and power and for peoples’ socialism. This is very different from the reactionary, “divisive,” and zero-sum way in which reparations is advanced by its bourgeois champions both white and Black.

 

Paul Street’s latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

Can the World Come to Its Senses on Nuclear Weapons?

In Democracy, Human rights, Justice, Nuclear abolition, Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Peace, Politics, War on September 1, 2017 at 1:45 am

By Bunny McDiarmid, Greenpeace

31 August 17

Looking back, one of the key moments that was to define both my professional and personal path was the moment I stepped onto the small atoll of Rongelap, in the Pacific Ocean.

It was May 17, 1985 and I was 24 years old.

At first glance, it appeared as if I had reached paradise; sandy beaches with coconut trees, water so crystal clear you could see the bottom, meters deep. And yet nothing was as it should be.

Waiting for us on the beach, with flowers, was the local community. The women held a banner reading “we love the future of our children.”

I was there with the crew of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, to help them relocate. Their beloved island was making them sick, and what you couldn’t see here could kill you.

Back in March 1954, the atoll received a massive dose of radiation when the U.S. tested its most powerful nuclear weapon. The test was code named “Castle Bravo” and the people of Rongelap were given no warning and offered no protection.

Radioactive fallout rained down on the island, falling for days. It dissolved into the water supplies, into the sea, and onto the houses, gardens and people. It contaminated them all.

In the tropics, where people spend a lot of time outside, the children played in the fine white ash, thinking it was snow.

In the years that followed, it became clear to the people that their island was no longer safe. The impact of the radiation poisoning, impossible to clean, was revealing itself with time. The number of children that had their damaged thyroids removed, the number of women that had children born with severe deformities, known as “jellyfish babies,” was impossible to ignore.

They no longer trusted what the U.S. military scientists were telling them about the safety of their island. They were left with no choice but to leave, with little hope of ever returning.

The contrast between the beautiful setting and the criminal irresponsibility of the U.S. military who used these people as guinea pigs is still heartbreaking this many years later.

Aug. 29, marked the International Day Against Nuclear Tests.

And while every day during the past few months stands as a stark reminder as to why nuclear tests and nuclear weapons are so dangerous, today is a good day to reflect on the lessons we’ve learned in fighting nuclear tests, and, most importantly, how we carry on the fight to rid the world of this evil invention.

This year, we do so with renewed impetus.

As the last few months has revealed, the majority of the world’s nuclear warheads are in the hands of men for whom the idea of using them is becoming thinkable.

It is perhaps hard to imagine that not so very long ago, nuclear tests were common and held regularly. Hailed as a benchmark of scientific progress and the ultimate guarantee of security, nuclear weapons have been tested more than 2000 times since July 16, 1945, when the “Trinity” test was conducted by the U.S. army in New Mexico.

In the 60s and 70s, the number of tests peaked, before decreasing in number but continuing steadily until the late 90s.

The countries conducting the most tests were the U.S. with 1,054 tests, the USSR with 715, France with 210, and the UK and China with 45 tests each.

Public outrage and the relentless efforts of determined individuals across the world eventually led major powers to stop testing in the physical environment. Greenpeace first set sail as an organization in 1971 to stop nuclear weapons testing and the role that we played in this, alongside so many, fills me with pride.

In 1996, major states signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty pledging to discontinue all nuclear testing. Although the treaty has never entered into force, nuclear testing essentially screeched to a halt with its adoption.

It forged an international zero-tolerance stance against nuclear testing. The handful of nuclear tests conducted after 1996 received universal condemnation and unanimously adopted UN Security Council sanctions.

The only country to have performed nuclear tests in the 21st century is North Korea—completing five tests in the past 11 years.

With the end of the Cold War, and with major powers signing various treaties committing them to disarm, media and public interest died down. We entered a period where many were living under the false pretense that the threat of nuclear war was something of the past.

And yet, the countries that have committed to disarming have not done so.

They have stalled, found excuses or blatantly ignored their commitments. The result is stark. Nearly 25 years after the end of the Cold War there are still an estimated 16,300 nuclear weapons at 98 sites in 14 countries. Rather than disarm, the nine nuclear-armed states continue to spend a fortune maintaining and modernizing their arsenals.

That false pretense under which we have been living has been shred to pieces during the last few months.

Nuclear war, it seems, is no longer inconceivable.

President Trump, who is the ultimate commander of the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, (believed to consist of 6,800 warheads) has threatened North Korea with “fire and fury.” North Korea has threatened to attack the U.S. territory of Guam, in the Pacific Ocean. The threat of nuclear attack has become a bargaining chip, a threat spoken about all too easily and lightly.

These latest developments fill me with anger and even despair. Have we learned nothing from the past?

But I try to see the positive. At least the veil has been lifted, once again we are reminded of how high the stakes are, how fragile is our existence in a world where nuclear weapons are still so prevalent.

These weapons of mass destruction are designed for one purpose only: war. Their use and even the threat of their use poses an existential threat to all life on our precious planet.

The solution to the current crisis is clear: negotiation and diplomacy. Only this can bring us back from the brink. But this is not enough, we can wait no longer for the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to disarm.

In July, a historic milestone was reached at the United Nations in New York when 122 countries voted in favor of a new treaty banning nuclear weapons.

In September, the treaty will open for signature. Nuclear armed states and many of their allies have boycotted the treaty and have done all they could to try and derail the negotiation. They failed, but their absence is significant as unless a country ratifies the treaty, it is not bound by it.

Nevertheless, the importance of the treaty is enormous—it will make it harder for the proponents of nuclear weapons to describe them as a legitimate and useful means to provide security. The treaty sets the benchmark for a world where nuclear weapons are considered as a threat to security, not an avenue to it.

In this time where the threat of war has become thinkable again, world governments must use it as an impetus to come to their senses and disarm.

 

Can Anyone Stop Trump From Launching Nuclear Weapons? Probably not—unless there’s a “full-scale mutiny.”

In Democracy, Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Politics on August 25, 2017 at 1:19 am

By David Corn, Mother Jones, August 23, 2017

After President Donald Trump’s unhinged performance at a Phoenix rally on Tuesday night, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a stunning statement: “I really question his ability to be—his fitness to be in this office.” Clapper, who is generally measured and nonpartisan, then said he was worried about Trump’s control of the US nuclear arsenal. “[If] in a fit of pique he decides to do something about Kim Jong Un, there’s actually very little to stop him,” he said. “The whole [nuclear weapons] system is built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there’s very little in the way of controls over exercising a nuclear option, which is pretty damn scary.”

No senior intelligence community veteran has ever publicly questioned the mental health of a president and suggested the sitting commander-in-chief was too imbalanced to be trusted with the nuclear codes. Clapper’s remarks were a stark reminder that Trump does hold the ultimate power. At any given moment, for any given reason—or for no reason—the president of the United States can launch nuclear weapons and destroy much, if not all, of the planet and human civilization. “People don’t believe it when you tell them that the president can do this,” says Joe Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund and a nonproliferation expert. “Whenever he wants. For whatever reason he wants. They think that is just to crazy to be true. But it is true. We have a nuclear monarchy. It is most consequential act any president can take, and it is the least democratic process in our entire government.”

But is the world truly at the mercy of Trump and his psyche? Missiles do start flying immediately after the president gives the command, but is there no outside-the-box method of stopping an off-kilter president from impetuously waging nuclear war? Could Defense Secretary James Mattis block such an order? Could White House chief of staff John Kelly tell the military not to follow it?

Last year, nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein addressed this point:

Could the secretary of defense refuse to carry out a presidential order for a nuclear attack? The legal and constitutional aspects are not clear. The official doctrine that has been released says nothing about this question, and the cryptic public responses to official inquiries, even from Congress, indicate that it is not something that can be openly talked about. “Only the president can authorize the use of nuclear weapons” is essentially the only reply officials ever give to any questions about nuclear controls. Could the president simply fire the defense secretary and move on to the deputy secretary, the secretary of the Army and so on through the chain of command? Maybe. Such an action would at least slow things down, even if the refusal to carry out the order was illegal. But the secretary may not even be formally required to participate — U.S. Air Force doctrine does not indicate he is a necessary part of the chain of command, and holds that the president can communicate directly with the military, in the form of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to order a nuclear strike.
Then there’s the question of whether commanders further down the line would implement launch orders. Wellerstein notes, “The launch officers are trained to launch weapons, not to debate the legality or advisability of the action…While nuclear launch officers are not meant to be strictly mechanical (and indeed, the United States has always resisted fully automating the process), if they stopped to question whether their authenticated orders were legitimate, they would put the credibility of US nuclear deterrence at risk.”

Recently, Bruce Blair, an expert on the command and control of nuclear weapons, also considered this question and said that he believed a presidential launch order would be accepted from top to bottom:
I believe the nuclear commanders at all levels would obey such an order, despite deep misgivings about its wisdom and legality. The military’s thorough subordination to civilian control and deeply ingrained attitude of deference to presidential direction; its well-greased and practiced protocols from top to bottom of the nuclear chain of command, geared to carry out his orders quickly (and to pressure a hesitant president to give the order)—as well as widespread ignorance among the rank and file about the dubious legality of striking first—leave little doubt in my mind that a presidential decision to strike a preventive blow, however misguided and reckless, would not be thwarted. It might be opposed strenuously by his advisers if they had a chance to weigh in, but in the end, they would acquiesce.
Cirincione points out that official protocol calls for Trump only to talk to the deputy director of operations in charge of the Military Command Center—the “war room” at the Pentagon—and the commander of the US Strategic Command. Neither can say no to an attack. As Vox notes, “The officers could try to convince the president not to launch an attack. They could resign on the spot in protest. Even if they did, though, they would most likely be replaced by officers willing to issue the command to strike.” Cirincione adds, “There is no legal requirement that the secretary of defense be included in the conference or the discussion [about launching nuclear weapons].” So Mattis might not even have the chance to weigh in. Possibly he would have no advance notice of a launch order.

There is the anecdote—often repeated—that during the last days of Richard Nixon’s presidency, when he was drinking heavily and despondent, then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger instructed the military not to react immediately to any military orders from Nixon, especially those involving nuclear weapons. Schlesinger claimed he did this, but the historical record is not clear. And Mattis has no official ability to convey such instructions.

What about a more cinematic scenario? The president wants to send nuclear weapons flying for iffy reasons—and someone tries to physically prevent him from doing so. To initiate an attack, Trump would need access to the briefcase with the command codes. The “nuclear football,” as it’s called, is carried by a military officer who is always within the president’s presence. So what if Mattis or Kelly tells the football carrier to not provide the case to the president? Trump could order whoever tries that to be removed. And what if someone actually wrestled Trump to the ground to stop him from going through with a launch? Secret Service agents would, no doubt, intervene. Few Cabinet officials are a good match for the Secret Service.

Cirincione believes there’s not much that could stop a president from waging nuclear war beyond a “full-scale mutiny.” Before President Barack Obama left office, Cirincione called on him to remove US nuclear weapons from hair-alert status—meaning the president would not need to launch nuclear missiles at the first sign of an attack against the United States. Such a change would provide more time for deliberation within the process for launching nuclear missiles. But it would not fully address the issue of what to do when an unstable person possesses the means to go nuclear entirely on his own say-so.

Trump is an angry man obsessed with revenge and lacking knowledge about nuclear weapons. Yet now he has this end-it-all capability, and national security experts are worried, if not frightened. Anyone who enters the US military must swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey orders from the president and from officers. An unjustified nuclear strike certainly could threaten the existence of the United States (and, thus, the Constitution). So it’s not inconceivable that those two components of the oath could come into profound conflict. Then the survival of the world might depend upon the most unconventional form of civil disobedience.

Germany’s Schulz says he would demand U.S. withdraw nuclear arms

In Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Politics on August 24, 2017 at 11:39 pm

BERLIN (Reuters, August 23, 2017) – The leader of Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD)
pledged to have U.S. nuclear weapons withdrawn from German territory
if, against the odds, he defeats Angela Merkel to become chancellor
next month.

Addressing a campaign rally in Trier late on Tuesday, SPD leader
Martin Schulz also said he, unlike Merkel, would resist demands by
U.S. President Donald Trump for NATO members to increase their defense
spending.

“Trump wants nuclear armament. We are against this,” Schulz said,
apparently trying to differentiate his party from Merkel’s more
hawkish Christian Democratic Union (CDU). “As chancellor, I will
commit Germany to having the nuclear weapons stationed here withdrawn
from our country,” he said.

About 20 U.S. nuclear warheads are thought to be stationed at a
military base in Buechel, in western Germany, according to unofficial
estimates. The U.S. embassy in Berlin said it does not comment on
nuclear weapons in Germany.

Taking advantage of Trump’s extreme unpopularity in Germany, Schulz
also said he would use the money Merkel had earmarked for increased
military spending for other purposes.

“What to do with our money is the central question of this election,”
he said, referring to a 30 billion-euro tax surplus. “Trump demands
that 2 percent of GDP, 30 billion euros, should go to military
spending, and Merkel agreed to that without asking German citizens.”

Germany and other NATO members had already pledged to raise their
defense spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product before Trump
was elected. While most of them have increased spending on their
militaries, only a few have reached the 2 percent goal, and Germany is
not one of them.

Most recent polls show Schulz’s party polling at around 24 percent,
some 14 percentage points behind Merkel. Most expect a booming economy
and low unemployment will carry her into a fourth term in Sept. 24
elections.

However, with Germans historically wary of using military force since
World War Two, Schulz’s message may resonate among the SPD’s core
voters.

After 12 years in office, Merkel has become increasingly confident on
the global stage. She has pushed for Germany to become more militarily
self-reliant, partly in response to Trump’s hinting that he might
abandon NATO allies if they do not spend more on defense.

Earlier this year, Merkel said the times when Germany could rely on
others to defend it were “to some extent in the past” .

Nuclear Modernization Under Obama and Trump Costly, Mismanaged, Unnecessary

In Cost, Democracy, Nuclear Guardianship, Nuclear Policy, Peace, Politics, War on August 20, 2017 at 6:49 am

By: Lydia Dennett | August 16, 2016

The United States maintains the strongest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. We currently have over 1,700 strategic and deadly nuclear warheads deployed at bases across the globe, with thousands more in storage plus thousands more intact and awaiting dismantlement.

It cannot be overstated how truly terrifying their capacity for destruction is. Each warhead is hundreds of times more powerful than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that was before the United States began the largest and most expensive nuclear modernization effort the world has ever seen.

President Trump’s response to North Korea’s most recent nuclear posturing references plans to “renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal.” He’s talking about an effort to maintain and upgrade the nuclear warheads themselves, their delivery systems (like submarines and planes), and the infrastructure at nuclear weapons production facilities. It’s an effort that began under President Obama and is likely to cost taxpayers over $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

But if nuclear deterrence is the goal, a $1 trillion modernization effort isn’t necessary. “[T]he thing about a deterrent capability is it does not matter how old it is,” the Commander of US Strategic Command told the Senate Armed Services Committee this past April. “It just matters whether it works…The stuff that we have today will work.”

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has also questioned the scope of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) modernization plans, noting in 2016 that “it’s very, very, very expensive[,]” and asking if “we really need the entire triad, given the situation?”

The nuclear triad refers to the three ways the United States is able to fire nuclear weapons, and each leg will receive an update under the current plan. In fact, several different nuclear warhead types have already begun life extension programs to replace their components and add new capabilities. Those that are in process have followed a simpler, more traditional approach to modernization that involves replacing aging components but leaving the basic nuclear explosive package the same.

For example, the Navy’s W76-1 nuclear warhead, which is deployed on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, has been upgraded to include a “super-fuze” device to make these warheads significantly more accurate so that they will explode close enough to hardened targets—like Russian inter-continental ballistic missile silos—and destroy them completely. Despite the addition of this new capability, the W76 life extension program is expected to finish on time in 2020 and will only cost approximately $4 billion. That’s likely because the changes were modest and didn’t include any modifications to the nuclear explosive package. The B61 nuclear warhead, deployed on the Air Force’s B-2 bombers, is also in the midst of a life extension program. This update will cost more than the bomb’s weight in solid gold—literally—yet is still less expensive than some of the other planned modernization efforts. $1.3 billion will be spent on the bomb’s new tail kit alone, which will add guidance capabilities to the weapons and make them far more accurate. This tail kit will also give the bomb a “dial-a-yield” capability, meaning the bomb’s yield can be lowered in order to attack very specific targets without as many unintentional causalities. Again, no changes will be made to the nuclear explosive package itself.

These enhancements are just the beginning of the nuclear modernization plan, a plan that extends far beyond the warheads themselves. But there are a lot of reasons to question what projects are being advanced in the name of a “modern nuclear arsenal.” The NNSA plans to take a much more aggressive and expensive approach to modernizing some warhead classes despite the fact that doing so will not improve the nuclear deterrence strategy or make the United States any safer. This will be incredibly expensive in and of itself, and will require huge, expensive new facilities to support that work. The agency has proposed building several new facilities to manufacture hundreds of new plutonium and uranium cores for the bombs. The NNSA’s cost estimates for these facilities have skyrocketed and would not be necessary for a more scaled-down, straight forward modernization plan.

While certain components of nuclear weapons must be remanufactured and replaced, the plutonium cores have a lifetime of 150 years and can be reused, dramatically reducing the need to build a brand new plutonium pit production facility. As for the uranium portion of nuclear warheads, sources have told POGO that hundreds of warheads going through the life extension programs have not required remanufactured uranium components.

Yet, the NNSA still plans to spend billions of dollars on new facilities capable of producing these nuclear components for weapons that may not even need them. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is also concerned with the purpose of these facilities, asking the NNSA to clarify specifically what these facilities will do and why we need them, and to develop a

complete

and reliable cost estimate for each proposed project.

But there are a lot of reasons to question what projects are being advanced in the name of a “modern nuclear arsenal.”
NNSA’s nuclear modernization project overall could use some justification. For example, future warhead life extension programs will involve brand new nuclear explosive packages that have never before been tested. These new packages are part of a plan to replace four different missile-carried warheads, two delivered by submarine and two land-based, with three different warheads. They are known as interoperable warheads because they will have a common nuclear explosive package despite being part of different legs of the triad. Development of the first interoperable warhead began in 2012 but was halted in 2014, partially because the Navy didn’t particularly want a new warhead design. Despite their reservations, the NNSA plans to restart their work on the interoperable warheads in 2020.

A peek under the hood of the agency’s cost estimates for the entire modernization effort, which includes both the new warhead designs and the new facilities, shows that additional oversight is needed. Earlier this year, the GAO released a report on the modernization numbers and found NNSA’s plans do not meet realistic budget estimates. The Office of Management and Budget has approved budget estimates for the next five years of the modernization plan so that they align with the President’s 5-year overall federal budget estimates. However, the NNSA has claimed they will need at least an additional $5 billion for some projects between 2018 and 2021. If the agency cannot reconcile the differences between what they say they’ll need and the approved budget estimates, they will have to defer some of the modernization work. “Misalignment between estimates in NNSA’s budget materials and modernization plans raises affordability concerns,” the GAO concluded.

NNSA’s management of contractors, including those conducting this modernization work, has also been notoriously bad—and on the GAO’s list of projects at high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse for years—leading to huge cost increases in the past. This is particularly worrying given that 90 percent of the modernization workforce are contractors, not government employees.

The NNSA’s long history of contractor mismanagement has led to things like budget misalignments, plans to build facilities without a clear mission or complete design, and significant delays in the more ambitious aspects of the nuclear modernization plan. This could leave the NNSA without the resources to fulfill their basic mission: ensuring the US nuclear stockpile is safe and secure. “Program instability poses a significant threat to NNSA’s mission critical capabilities,” an independent advisory group concluded in their review of the nuclear modernization plan.

The NNSA has not proven themselves to be effective stewards of taxpayer dollars, yet they ask Congress to hand over billions of dollars before demonstrating what capabilities they need and before even submitting an accurate cost estimate. It’s time to take a look at how much of this nuclear modernization plan is truly necessary for maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent and how much is just expensive window dressing designed to give nuclear contractors something to do.

lydia dennett
By: Lydia Dennett, Investigator

 

Lydia Dennett is an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight. Lydia works on safety and security of nuclear weapons and power facilities, foreign lobbying and influence, and works with Department of Veterans Affairs whistleblowers.

About the Korean War

In Human rights, Justice, Peace, Politics, War on August 20, 2017 at 4:11 am

 

By Tom Mayer, Peace Trains Column, August 18, 2017

The current crisis with North Korea arises from the unresolved Korean War. Here are some facts about the Korean War unknown to most Americans.

 

1. Japan annexed Korea as a colony in 1910. Japan exploited Korea brutally. The Korean War actually began in the 1930’s as a civil war against Japanese imperialism and against the Koreans who collaborated with Japanese imperialism. Kim Il Sung, the first head of North Korea (and grandfather of the current ruler), was a principal leader of the resistance movement against Japan.

2. During World War Two, grassroots liberation movements sprang up throughout Korea. These movements aimed at redistributing land (which was owned by a tiny elite) and casting off Japanese domination. In addition, over 50 thousand Koreans joined with the Chinese Communists to fight against Japan in Manchuria. These Korean soldiers subsequently helped Mao and his peasant army win the civil war in China. This motivated China to support North Korea in the Korean War.

3. Korea has been a single country for well over a thousand years. Nevertheless the day after the Nagasaki bombing, U.S. government officials (e.g. Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk) chose the 38th parallel – which had no previous relevance in Korean history – as the dividing line between North and South Korea. The purpose was to prevent Soviet troops from occupying the whole of Korea. Neither the Koreans nor the Soviets were consulted about this crucial decision. The 38th parallel has never been a recognized international boundary.

 

4. In order to forestall social revolution in Asia, the Truman administration decided to resurrect Japanese influence within East Asia. In South Korea the U.S. established a government consisting largely of persons who collaborated with Japan during World War Two. This regime brutally repressed all movements for progressive social change. Many thousands of men, women, and children were murdered by government forces and their right wing allies.

5. On June 25, 1950 North Korea launched a full scale invasion of South Korea. Prior to the attack there had been numerous border skirmishes, some of them substantial. The purpose of the invasion was (a) preventing renewed Japanese hegemony over Korea, (b) removing violent Japanese collaborators from power in South Korea, and (c) unifying the country. Although the armies of North and South Korea were of about equal size, the North Korean army proved far superior and enjoyed considerable popular support within the south. Without U.S. military intervention, North Korean forces would have vanquished their foes and unified Korea in less than one month.

6. The United States carpet bombed North Korea for three years with very little concern for civilian casualties. Every North Korean city was destroyed. The U.S. dropped more bombs on North Korea then were used in the entire Pacific theater during World War Two. Extensive use was made of napalm, and employment of nuclear weapons was seriously considered. Neutral observers said that by 1952 North Korea resembled a moonscape.

7. North Korean forces were often ruthless towards civilians, but substantial evidence shows that America’s South Korean allies were considerably more vicious and less discriminating. They frequently slaughtered the entire families of anyone suspected of being a leftist. The U.S. high command generally ignored these atrocities and sometimes participated in them. This happened at Nogun Village in July 1950 when American soldiers machine gunned hundreds of helpless civilians under a railroad bridge.

8. The Korean War was one of the most destructive wars of the 20th century. About three million Koreans died in that war, at least half of whom were civilians. By comparison, Japan lost 2.3 million people in World War Two. The Korean War was never officially ended, and (as current events indicate) could easily be restarted.