President
Trump is now threatening another destructive war
against the North Korean people and their
society. He must not be allowed to do this—there
is another way to deal with the problem. As a
matter of policy, Trump can redirect his energy
and efforts onto the person of Kim Jong-un, the
country's dictator, who not only threatens the
safety of other nations, but who holds his own
people in slavery. Why should the United States
make war against a captive nation and its
helpless people when there is a more effective
solution?
The Failure of War as an Instrument of Public
Policy
Making war
against nation states and their people no longer
works. Unstable and undemocratic countries, such
as North Korea, are usually controlled by
individuals and cabals against whom military
force ends up harming their own domestic victims
more than the entrenched leadership. The wrath
of the people is directed against the outsiders
who slaughter their children and helps solidify
the rule of their domestic despots.
Destroying the
infrastructure of a nation to turn its people
against their “leadership” fails—as in
Iraq—resulting in the deaths of thousands of
innocent children. Targeting “insurgents” using
drones and violent nighttime home invasions
fails—as in Afghanistan—resulting in
“collateral” deaths and injuries to children and
noncombatants. Imposition of economic sanctions
fail—as in Iran—resulting in the destruction of
the middle class and small businesses that are
essential to a free society. Support of “rebels”
against their government fails—as in Libya—when
the new government is controlled by hostile and
undemocratic forces. Direct military strikes
fail to make a difference—as in Syria—for all of
these reasons; and the threat of violent war—as
in North Korea—is simply stupid against an
immature dictator who has nuclear weapons and
nothing to lose by using them.
The use of war
as an instrument of foreign policy fails in all
of these situations because it does not produce
the desired change. It primarily injures the
innocent victims of their unrepresentative
governments and results in their hatred of the
aggressors, rather than their oppressors.
In addition,
the use of war by the United States also harms
its own people through the wasteful diversion of
scarce tax resources to the military-industrial
complex, the compiling of massive and
unsustainable public debt, a reduction of
personal freedoms by the intelligence-security
complex, and a loss of respect by other people
and nations around the world.
Moreover,
continued use of aggressive—yet undeclared—wars
by the United States has resulted in an
undemocratic shift of power from the legislative
branch to the executive branch of government.
The Constitution provides that “The Congress
shall have power . . . To declare War . . .
.” For the past 50 years, however, American
presidents, rather than Congress, have
repeatedly unleashed military force against far
weaker nations and their people—who do not have
the means or ability to fight back, except
through acts of terror.
In addition to
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Syria, the
United States is also currently conducting
military operations in Somalia and Yemen. Not
only are these wars undeclared by Congress,
their extent is largely concealed from the
People. Moreover, in “fighting” these wars, the
president, as Commander-in-Chief, claims the
right to kill and detain “unlawful combatants,”
including American citizens, anywhere in the
world, without trial.
Americans no
longer want to militarily intervene in other
countries. A CBS/NYT poll found that 72 percent
of Americans are opposed to removing dictators
where it can, and a CNN poll found more than six
in ten Americans desiring a more
“non-interventionist” foreign policy. Part of
President Trump's electoral support resulted
from his campaign promises to avoid military
action in foreign nations. He said the United
States. should "stay out of Syria and other
countries that hate us."
Yes, there is
violence and repression in the world, some of
which may threaten the security interests of the
United States, and it would be naive to deny it.
It is equally foolish, however, to believe that
launching undeclared aggressive wars against
nation states and their people can resolve each
and every one of these threats. There has to be
a better solution, one that is both legal and
effective.
|
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is
Independent Media
|
An Alternative to War
Let us, for a
moment, think “outside the box” about an
alternative public policy to deal with these
dangerous geopolitical situations—one based on
commonsense and the law.
Assuming that
the Trump administration can make the case that
Kim Jong-un and his regime pose a risk of danger
to the People of the United States, shouldn’t
President Trump present that evidence to
Congress and allow it to decide what to do?
Rather than an authorization to launch a violent
military attack against North Korea—essentially
a declaration of war—Congress could pass a
resolution along these lines:
The Congress
of the United States declares that Kim Jong-un
and his administration of the government of
North Korea pose a danger to the United States,
and he is hereby declared to be an outlaw.
Congress directs the President of the United
States to file a legal proceeding against the
government of North Korea in the International
Court of Justice and to take all necessary and
reasonable steps to compel the personal
attendance of Kim Jong-un to defend his
government and its conduct.
As a member of
the United Nations, North Korea is automatically
a party of the International Court; however, it
must consent to jurisdiction in a specific case.
The congressional resolution would, however, be
directed against Kim, personally—as the dictator
of North Korea—instead of the people of North
Korea. It is narrowly designed to compel him to
personally leave North Korea and to accept
jurisdiction of the Court on its behalf. As a
practical matter, once Kim leaves the country,
the chances of his ever returning are very slim.
In many
respects, the congressional resolution would act
like an arrest warrant in a domestic criminal
action. There, a judge finds probable cause for
the arrest and directs the police to take the
suspect into custody and deliver the defendant
for trial. In doing so, the police are
authorized to use all necessary and reasonable
force to take custody of the accused.
The United
Nations Human Rights Committee approved a
resolution in 2014 calling for North Korea to be
brought before another international tribunal,
the International Criminal Court (ICC), on
charges of human rights violations. During
testimony before the UN Security Council in
2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
asked the Council to refer North Korea to the
ICC. Following the recent assassination of Kim's
brother, Kim Jong-nam, the UN General Assembly
again asked the Security Council to refer the
North Korean leadership to the ICC While a
congressional resolution directing President
Trump to secure the presence of Kim Jong-un
before these international tribunals would be
coercive, it would be far less violent than the
unleashing of bombs and cruise missiles on the
poor North Korean people.
Although the
use of reasonable force personally directed
against the outlaw dictator to “arrest” him
might result in his death, the use of force
would not have political assassination as its
purpose. To the contrary—much like hostage
negotiations by professional police
officers—every attempt should be made to obtain
his voluntary surrender. Reasonable rewards and
incentives might also be offered for his
surrender by members of his own government.
The Kim
dictatorship dominates the North Korean media
and carefully controls the information received
by the people. Radios and television sets are
preset to North Korean frequencies and must be
registered with the authorities. Although there
is little access to the Internet, there is a
widespread market for USB flash drives which
feature South Korean music and movies. It is not
difficult to image infiltrating and "bombing"
the nation with bootleg flash drives and other
forms of person-to-person communications
reassuring the North Korean people that the
United States was renouncing the making of war
against them and their nation in favor of
rewards and benefits for the arrest and delivery
of their dictator. While ordinary North Koreans
might not have the ready ability, those most
close to the person of Kim Jong-un might be
sufficiently encouraged to take action.
Sounding the Alarm
On becoming
the Commander-in-Chief of the United States
military, President Trump immediately abdicated
his command responsibility by empowering the
Secretary of Defense and the Central Command to
authorize military actions they deem
appropriate. Because of the numerous scandals
and dysfunction associated with his political
staff, Trump is relying on the military to
distract the public from his presidential
failures.
Within days of
Trump's inauguration, a botched military
counterterrorism operation in Yemen resulted in
the deaths of 30 civilians, including an
eight-year-old American girl. Trump blamed the
failure on his generals and the Obama
administration, while claiming unfounded
successes. Trump's military aggression continued
with a massive tomahawk cruise missile attack
against a Syrian airbase—which risked war with
Russia—and the dropping of the largest
conventional bomb in history in Afghanistan.
Trump claimed that all of these attacks were
successful, but the primary result was to divert
attention from his rapidly falling popularity
ratings, which are the lowest of all
newly-elected presidents.
As Trump is
now threatening to go it "alone" on North Korea,
his
senior policy
adviser Stephen Miller has declared “the powers
of the president to protect our country are very
substantial and will not be questioned."
Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson is warning of "catastrophic
consequences" of a failure to take action
against North Korea and warns that the United
States will use military force if necessary. The
Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command refuses to
rule out an invasion of North Korea, even for
the "heck of it."
Claiming "bone
spurs" as a young man, Trump dodged military
service. Now as America's leading "chicken
hawk," he is like a little boy playing with
matches as he risks reigniting the Korean War.
Perhaps it matters not to him that millions of
North and South Koreans may once again die in
the resulting war, but he will also risk the
lives of American service members and the
economic health of the nation in an entirely
avoidable war.
Near the end
of World War II, as allied forces discovered the
conditions in the German concentration camps,
General Eisenhower ordered that local citizens
be forced to look inside the camps at the
atrocities committed by their Nazi leaders.
Following the conviction and execution of these
leaders at the Nuremberg trials, the United
Nations established the principle that "All
members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state . . . ."
The United
States has not formally declared war on another
nation since World War II; however, its
presidents have repeatedly threatened to use,
and have actually used, military force against
other states. Truman and Eisenhower had the
Korean War; Johnson and Nixon had Vietnam;
Reagan invaded tiny Grenada; Bush Sr. invaded
Panama and Iraq; Clinton bombed Sudan and
Yugoslavia; and Bush Jr. invaded Iraq based on
falsified evidence. Obama continued the "war
against terrorism," extended it worldwide, and
institutionalized the presidential hit list.
President
Trump repeatedly expresses his admiration for
"strong," yet repressive leaders, including
Putin in Russia, Duarte in the Philippines, and
Kim Jong-un—whom Trump calls "a pretty smart
cookie." Trump sees the world as a "vicious and
brutal place" and imagines himself as the
risk-taking, angry, tough, and authoritarian
warrior who can win every game. In response to
threats in the Middle East, Trump said, "I would
bomb the s--- out of them. . . . I'd blow up
every single inch, there would be nothing left."
Conservative commentator George W. Will
described Trump as having "an untrained mind
bereft of information and married to
stratospheric self-confidence."
More than
53,000 mental health professionals have signed a
petition sounding the alarm that Trump
"manifests a serious mental illness that renders
him psychologically incapable of competently
discharging the duties of President of the
United States." The petition was started by Dr.
John Gartner, who said "Worse than being just a
liar or a narcissist" Trump is "paranoid,
delusional and [engages in] grandiose thinking."
With the most
mentally unstable person ever to occupy the
presidency having the most powerful military
force in history at his unfettered disposal,
Americans must ask themselves whether or not
they approve of another war being launched in
their name. If not, they must arrive at a
solution to avoid their personal complicity with
the consequences of their failure to act.
The American
People are not powerless; however, they still
have, restricted as it has become, the freedom
to assemble and protest. They still have the
power to contact their congressional
representatives and implore them to take
legislative action to avoid another war in
Korea, and they still have the power to vote out
of any office any representative who does not
listen to their voice and respond to their
demands. Their vote is the only real power left
to the People; however, time is short. With an
Army general now serving as the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the United States is only one
terrorist act away from the imposition of
martial law by presidential order, in which all
of these remaining rights may be forfeit.
William John
Cox wrote the
role of the police in America for President
Nixon's National Advisory Commission on Criminal
Justice Standards and Goals in 1972. As a public
interest lawyer, Cox filed a class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979
against President Carter and the Congress
alleging that the government no longer
represented those who voted for it. In 1980, he
ran a write-in campaign for president calling
for a law enforcement alternative to making war
against the innocent people of other nations.
Cox continues to write about philosophy,
politics, and public policy matters.
His
latest book is
Transforming America: A Voters' Bill of Rights.
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
