Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Neocons: Regime Change or Bust

Encouraging Japan to build nuclear weapons, shipping food aid via submarines, and running secret sabotage operations inside North Korea's borders...

Encouraging Japan to build nuclear weapons, shipping food aid via submarines, and running secret sabotage operations inside North Korea’s borders are among a raft of policy prescriptions pushed by prominent U.S. neoconservatives in the wake of Pyongyang’s nuclear test.

Writing in venues ranging from the National Review Online (NRO) to the New York Times, neoconservatives are claiming, contrary to lessons drawn by “realist” and other critics of the George W. Bush administration, that the nuclear test vindicates their long-held view that negotiations with “rogue” states like North Korea are useless and that regime change-by military means, if necessary-is the only answer.

“With our intelligence on North Korea so uneven, the doctrine of preemption must return to the fore,” wrote Dan Blumenthal, an Asia specialist at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who worked for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during Bush’s first term, in the NRO (October 10, 2006). “Any talk of renewed Six-Party Talks [involving China, Japan, Russia, the United States, and the two Koreas] must be resisted.”

The North Korean test “has stripped any plausibility to arguments that engaging dictators works,” according to Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist at AEI, who added that the Bush administration now faces a “watershed” in its relations with other states that have defied Washington in recent years.

“This crisis is not just about North Korea, but about Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba as well,” according to Rubin. “Bush now has two choices: to respond forcefully and show that defiance has consequence, or affirm that defiance pays and that international will is illusionary.

“[He] must now choose whether his legacy will be one of inaction or leadership, Chamberlain or Churchill,” he added in a reference to the pre-World War II debate between the “appeasement” of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the war policy of his successor, Winston Churchill.

The neoconservatives’ influence on the Bush administration has generally been on the wane since late 2003 when it became clear that the Iraq War, which neoconservatives had championed, was going badly. Nonetheless, neoconservatives retain some clout, particularly through the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Rumsfeld.

They are opposed by the “realists,” who are concentrated in the State Department and also include former Secretary of State Colin Powell, his chief deputy Richard Armacost, and a number of top national security officials in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, such as former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Secretary of State James Baker.

The realists’ stance is anathema to the neoconservatives and their right-wing allies, such as Cheney, who, at one National Security Council meeting on North Korea several years ago reportedly said, “We don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it.”

The neoconservatives’ main area of concern has historically been the Middle East-indeed, their central focus in recent months has been publicizing the threats to the United States and Israel allegedly posed by Iran and Hezbollah and opposing any realist appeals to engage Tehran and Damascus in direct talks. But they have also been warning for some time against “the appeasement” of North Korea and its chief source of material aid and support, China.

In their view, Beijing has always had the power to force Pyongyang to give up its nuclear arms programs, and the fact that it has not done so supposedly demonstrates that China sees itself as a “strategic rival” of Washington, a phrase much favored by administration hawks during Bush’s first year in office.

Indeed, in the most prominent neoconservative reaction to the North Korean test to date, in a New York Times column former Bush speechwriter David Frum called for the administration to take a series of measures designed to “punish China” for its failure to bring Pyongyang to heel. Frum, who is also based at AEI and is sometimes credited with inventing the phrase “axis of evil” for Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, urged the administration to cut off all humanitarian aid to North Korea, pressure South Korea to do the same, and thus force China to “shoulder the cost of helping to avert” North Korea’s economic collapse (October 10, 2006).

Frum urged that Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore be invited to join NATO, and that Taiwan, which China regards as a renegade province, be invited to send observers to NATO meetings. He also suggested that Washington “encourage Japan to renounce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and create its own nuclear deterrent.”

“A nuclear Japan is the thing China and North Korea dread most (after, perhaps, a nuclear South Korea or Taiwan),” he asserted. “Not only would the nuclearization of Japan be a punishment of China and North Korea,” he wrote, “but it would also go far to meet our goal of dissuading Iran [from obtaining nuclear weapons] . The analogue for Iran, of course, would be the threat of American aid to improve Israel’s capacity to hit targets with nuclear weapons.”

Other neoconservatives echoed Blumenthal’s position that the Six-Party Talks should be abandoned and called for the administration to resist any further appeals for bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang, which have been repeatedly made by China, South Korea, and Russia, as well as by realists in the United States, over the past several years.

“There will be renewed calls for bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang. That would be a mistake,” opined a lead editorial in the neoconservative Wall Street Journal, which also urged the United States to “make clear that a military response is not off the table.”

Other commentators called for strong efforts to achieve regime change. James Robbins, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, called for covert action, including “sabotage, espionage, information operations, subversion, deception-the works. A highly paranoid totalitarian regime like Kim [Jong Il’s] will be highly susceptible to these methods,” he predicted.

At the same time, former House Speaker and Defense Policy Board member Newt Gingrich, also based at AEI, said he favored continuing shipments of U.S. food aid but through a covert delivery system “consciously designed to undermine the dictatorship.”

“Food might be parachuted into the country, delivered from submarines and small boats by clandestine services, shipped in from China and Russia through anti-regime middlemen and delivered in every way possible to divert energy and authority away from the government and toward an alternative organizing system of individuals dedicated to a better, more prosperous, life,” he wrote.

Like his fellow neoconservatives, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, called for accelerated development and deployment of Washington’s embryonic but extraordinarily costly missile defense system, including a ship-launched system that could shoot down ballistic missiles of various ranges, “whether launched from places like North Korea or from tramp steamers off our coasts.”

He also urged Washington to resume periodic underground nuclear tests of its own, ending a moratorium on such testing announced by former President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Jim Lobe is a contributing writer to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org) and the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Jim Lobe, "Neocons: Regime Change or Bust," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, October 11, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share