BENEATH AND BEYOND NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR TEST
Abdul - Kadir O. Etuazim
October 10, 2006
"There is only one thing more powerful than all the armies of the world, that is an idea whose time has come."
Victor Hugo
Like some people, I am frightened by North Korea’s nuclear test. My fear is based on the disturbing fact that another country has joined the list of nations capable of using nuclear weapons. Possession of nuclear weapons increases the likelihood of use. Additionally, reasonable fears of proliferation and a distant odd of radioactive materials being traded on eBay further explain my uncertainties.
It is a shame that humanity is vainly preoccupied with perfecting the art and science of destruction while hunger, disease, poverty and homelessness ravage more people today than ever. Ordinarily, why North Korea decided to embark on gyrating on slippery slopes appears to be incomprehensible. It is the contention of this piece that the main actors, the USA and North Korea should be held responsible for the current state of affairs. I am not into the talk of North Korea disregarding the international community. A few countries cannot claim to speak for us all without mandate.
The fallout from the nuclear test if not well articulated and handled with care might result in worse case scenarios. In the first instance, one of the many blowbacks of bellicose diplomacy is on display with North Korea’s defiance. Dialogue, dialogue and dialogue form the core ingredients of any tension dousing ointment. It is a fact of life that at the end of the day, seating around a table has always culminated wars and battles. The Bush administration worsened the tense situation by refusing to engage in talks with North Korea. Examples abound of talks with supposed enemies breaking barriers. Engaging in one on one dialogue is not akin to blinking first.
James Baker, former US Secretary of State, speaking on television last Sunday questioned the brand of diplomacy that rejects contacts and dialogues. He recollected how late President Reagan engaged the defunct Soviet Union in bilateral exchanges after branding them evil. President Clinton, during his Global Initiative Conference, looked in the direction of Shimon Peres, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, and expressed reservations with hoisting preconditions, since Hamas won the parliamentary elections, as prerequisites before restarting the Israel/Palestine peace talks. He reminded all present, that the IRA did not renounce violence before peace talks got under way.
Next is the issue of the so called international community. The “community” manifests at times as the UN, US, Britain and EU four party talks; and other bamboozling ad hoc coalitions jostling for position with the United Nations in conflict resolution. Does it mean the EU, Britain and USA identify other members of the United Nations as inferior? Equally intriguing is the lack of respect these groups display towards opposing views. It is not surprising, therefore, that the calls for democracy, championed by the same bloc are viewed with serious skepticism in many parts of the developing world.
Speaking of the international community, it is highly likely that if regional and continental bodies were involved in framing the road map towards getting North Korea to step back from the brink, the present situation would have been avoided. The fact of the matter is either the west is addicted to issuing orders or has refused to learn effective communication skills when dealing with developing countries. As such, any hopes of resolving future stand offs must be predicated on involving the real international community. The effects of peer pressure cannot be under estimated; not to mention real effective encirclement of any recalcitrant leadership.
Furthermore, it is trite to say we are in the twenty-first century. Therefore, any inkling of imperial and colonial tendencies would most probably yield negative results. In cross-cultural interactions, interpretation of words, gestures and other non-verbal communication patterns go a long way in affecting relationships. These interpretations can be tainted by perceived long history of domination, oppression and manipulation by one of the parties. This line of reasoning is enhanced by questionable moves, such as the back door reclassification of the comity of nations (by forming parallel and superior blocs to the UN) or why it appears the United Nations Security Council has been inoculated against reforms that would reflect the equality of all regions and groups.
The reclassification theory is supported by an emerging trend of the United States, Britain, some European countries and Russia to create groups that operate simultaneously with the United Nations to resolve disputes. What should be of concern is how this is perceived by the real international community. Any superfluous intention to separate descendants of imperial powers, slave dealers and masters and buccaneers from the majority of the world peoples can only be interpreted one way and that is neo-oppression. These acts in and of themselves might appear innocuous but the consequences of their interpretations can be threatening and damaging to world peace.
Japan’s cheerleading role in calling for sanctions, vis-à-vis her unpalatable history with its neighbors during WWII, would only serve to exacerbate the intransigence of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). This type of attitude tends to harden positions and stoke the embers of discord. It is incumbent on peace loving individuals and groups to bring to public notice the mindsets and stances that shape and influence certain actions that cannot be understood using contemporary information sans historical antecedents.
Another fallout is the issue of mutual respect. It does appear that teenagers and animals get better treatment from the “International Community” than sovereign nations. It is the height of haughtiness for sovereign countries to be talked down to in public. Where is the respect that is extended to teenagers and pets in the international communities’ home bases? This is another abnormal pattern we have to change in the twenty-first century. The North Korea scenario should be viewed from this prism, among others. No matter what, respect in interactions is a must for global peace.
Aside official levels of interactions, talk shows on radio and television stations tend to fuel resentment and intransigence of parties to conflicts. The relative ease of affordability and ubiquitous nature of the Internet in many countries make it imperative for greater caution in the media. It is no longer news that a majority of the US population is ignorant of local affairs not to mention international affairs. Consequently, when individuals from this pool find themselves in the public eye, they are not properly equipped to wade through the minefields of international communications conventions. It would be foolhardy to raise the free speech flag. There ought to be issues regarded as sacrosanct in terms of (unfettered?) free speech. Respect for cultural and religious sensibilities is one of the reasons to be circumspect in waving the free speech flag.
The media is brought into this conversation because - until recently - in many parts of the world radio and television belched out mostly governments’ stands on most issues. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the extremes of western political landscape reflected in how commentators on both sides of the political divide tackle global issues are taken to represent official policies. The defense of absolute free speech in such circumstances would be as mischievous as it also depicts cross-cultural communications illiteracy. I have experienced many instances when radio and television talk show hosts spew insensitive remarks and disparaging comments on different religions, groups and regions outside the United States. What the commentators fail to understand is that their broadcasts are available on the web and citizens of the world listen with rapt attention.
To avoid another North-Korea-like experience, all hands must be on deck and utterances guarded from now on. Those crying out do so because weapons do not differentiate between color, creed or race. We can make our points with fire in our bellies but, more discreetly, with our heads in the fridge. The word sensibility should be intentionally balanced with free speech.
Victor Hugo
Like some people, I am frightened by North Korea’s nuclear test. My fear is based on the disturbing fact that another country has joined the list of nations capable of using nuclear weapons. Possession of nuclear weapons increases the likelihood of use. Additionally, reasonable fears of proliferation and a distant odd of radioactive materials being traded on eBay further explain my uncertainties.
It is a shame that humanity is vainly preoccupied with perfecting the art and science of destruction while hunger, disease, poverty and homelessness ravage more people today than ever. Ordinarily, why North Korea decided to embark on gyrating on slippery slopes appears to be incomprehensible. It is the contention of this piece that the main actors, the USA and North Korea should be held responsible for the current state of affairs. I am not into the talk of North Korea disregarding the international community. A few countries cannot claim to speak for us all without mandate.
The fallout from the nuclear test if not well articulated and handled with care might result in worse case scenarios. In the first instance, one of the many blowbacks of bellicose diplomacy is on display with North Korea’s defiance. Dialogue, dialogue and dialogue form the core ingredients of any tension dousing ointment. It is a fact of life that at the end of the day, seating around a table has always culminated wars and battles. The Bush administration worsened the tense situation by refusing to engage in talks with North Korea. Examples abound of talks with supposed enemies breaking barriers. Engaging in one on one dialogue is not akin to blinking first.
James Baker, former US Secretary of State, speaking on television last Sunday questioned the brand of diplomacy that rejects contacts and dialogues. He recollected how late President Reagan engaged the defunct Soviet Union in bilateral exchanges after branding them evil. President Clinton, during his Global Initiative Conference, looked in the direction of Shimon Peres, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, and expressed reservations with hoisting preconditions, since Hamas won the parliamentary elections, as prerequisites before restarting the Israel/Palestine peace talks. He reminded all present, that the IRA did not renounce violence before peace talks got under way.
Next is the issue of the so called international community. The “community” manifests at times as the UN, US, Britain and EU four party talks; and other bamboozling ad hoc coalitions jostling for position with the United Nations in conflict resolution. Does it mean the EU, Britain and USA identify other members of the United Nations as inferior? Equally intriguing is the lack of respect these groups display towards opposing views. It is not surprising, therefore, that the calls for democracy, championed by the same bloc are viewed with serious skepticism in many parts of the developing world.
Speaking of the international community, it is highly likely that if regional and continental bodies were involved in framing the road map towards getting North Korea to step back from the brink, the present situation would have been avoided. The fact of the matter is either the west is addicted to issuing orders or has refused to learn effective communication skills when dealing with developing countries. As such, any hopes of resolving future stand offs must be predicated on involving the real international community. The effects of peer pressure cannot be under estimated; not to mention real effective encirclement of any recalcitrant leadership.
Furthermore, it is trite to say we are in the twenty-first century. Therefore, any inkling of imperial and colonial tendencies would most probably yield negative results. In cross-cultural interactions, interpretation of words, gestures and other non-verbal communication patterns go a long way in affecting relationships. These interpretations can be tainted by perceived long history of domination, oppression and manipulation by one of the parties. This line of reasoning is enhanced by questionable moves, such as the back door reclassification of the comity of nations (by forming parallel and superior blocs to the UN) or why it appears the United Nations Security Council has been inoculated against reforms that would reflect the equality of all regions and groups.
The reclassification theory is supported by an emerging trend of the United States, Britain, some European countries and Russia to create groups that operate simultaneously with the United Nations to resolve disputes. What should be of concern is how this is perceived by the real international community. Any superfluous intention to separate descendants of imperial powers, slave dealers and masters and buccaneers from the majority of the world peoples can only be interpreted one way and that is neo-oppression. These acts in and of themselves might appear innocuous but the consequences of their interpretations can be threatening and damaging to world peace.
Japan’s cheerleading role in calling for sanctions, vis-à-vis her unpalatable history with its neighbors during WWII, would only serve to exacerbate the intransigence of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). This type of attitude tends to harden positions and stoke the embers of discord. It is incumbent on peace loving individuals and groups to bring to public notice the mindsets and stances that shape and influence certain actions that cannot be understood using contemporary information sans historical antecedents.
Another fallout is the issue of mutual respect. It does appear that teenagers and animals get better treatment from the “International Community” than sovereign nations. It is the height of haughtiness for sovereign countries to be talked down to in public. Where is the respect that is extended to teenagers and pets in the international communities’ home bases? This is another abnormal pattern we have to change in the twenty-first century. The North Korea scenario should be viewed from this prism, among others. No matter what, respect in interactions is a must for global peace.
Aside official levels of interactions, talk shows on radio and television stations tend to fuel resentment and intransigence of parties to conflicts. The relative ease of affordability and ubiquitous nature of the Internet in many countries make it imperative for greater caution in the media. It is no longer news that a majority of the US population is ignorant of local affairs not to mention international affairs. Consequently, when individuals from this pool find themselves in the public eye, they are not properly equipped to wade through the minefields of international communications conventions. It would be foolhardy to raise the free speech flag. There ought to be issues regarded as sacrosanct in terms of (unfettered?) free speech. Respect for cultural and religious sensibilities is one of the reasons to be circumspect in waving the free speech flag.
The media is brought into this conversation because - until recently - in many parts of the world radio and television belched out mostly governments’ stands on most issues. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the extremes of western political landscape reflected in how commentators on both sides of the political divide tackle global issues are taken to represent official policies. The defense of absolute free speech in such circumstances would be as mischievous as it also depicts cross-cultural communications illiteracy. I have experienced many instances when radio and television talk show hosts spew insensitive remarks and disparaging comments on different religions, groups and regions outside the United States. What the commentators fail to understand is that their broadcasts are available on the web and citizens of the world listen with rapt attention.
To avoid another North-Korea-like experience, all hands must be on deck and utterances guarded from now on. Those crying out do so because weapons do not differentiate between color, creed or race. We can make our points with fire in our bellies but, more discreetly, with our heads in the fridge. The word sensibility should be intentionally balanced with free speech.
Print
Email
