Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Thursday, April 17, 2014
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
When Diplomacy Costs More Than it Earns By: Alan Nathan
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, October 12, 2006


North Korea’s claim to have detonated a nuclear blast has yet to be confirmed, but the explosion from their northeast region did register a 4.2 on the Richter scale. Predictable United Nations condemnation followed with its usual compunction to act. It’s hard to imagine a more fertile market for Viagra than the virility-impaired world body in New York.

The United States has proposed sanctions that would call for limiting Pyongyang from importing and exporting all nuclear and ballistic technology while hampering its ongoing counterfeiting of U.S. dollars.

The Washington Post reported, “Britain and France voiced support for, but stopped short of endorsing the draft resolution.” This behavior falls into the war funding playbook of Massachusetts Senator Democrat John Kerry when he said, “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” But Kerry at least waited awhile before changing his mind. This move from Britain and France is too much of a summersault even to rise to the level of a “flip-flop.” Traditionally Russia and China have been worse.

 

The Bush administration has plenty about which to apologize. They’ve had little success bringing about North Korea’s nuclear non-proliferation compliance through its six-party talks with Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid blames this White House approach for the crisis.

 

However, to the educated eye, Democrats are seen as going against that which they normally espouse: multilateral talks that last longer than most civilizations; massive consensus-building exercises among our alleged allies so as to ensure that as little as possible is accomplished lest we offend another power’s sensibilities; indefinitely holding back pressure in order to propitiate the otherwise ruffled feathers of whatever “odd duck” country might be insulted by the unseemly assertiveness associated with the quest of something so unsavory as a solution!

 

With the sure footedness of a drunken elephant on Vaseline-coated skates, Democrats are indignantly claiming that the White House should have held direct talks with Pyongyang despite that formula’s failure during the Clinton administration. While their efforts were genuinely laudable, the Clinton team’s 1994 treaty with North Korea was violated by the rogue state almost immediately; however, it wasn’t till 2002 before the Bush administration discovered the truth.

 

While the inertia of the United Nations can be explained by examining its member states’ multiple interests colliding with one another, our own national malaise is rooted in a more perilous conflict of wills. Beyond the classic battle between conservatives and liberals, we find ourselves confronted by designs of imported influence masquerading as part of us.

 

Seriously troubling are these U.S.-based interest groups serving foreign goals within the framework of the Democratic Party. Among them is International ANSWER, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, with a name that camouflages its stated mission against representative governments. They defended the Tiananmen Square Massacre and support the North Korean government of Kim Jong Il. More specifically, they’re an extension of the Workers World Party, a Stalinist network that broke with the Socialist Workers Party because they disagreed over the Soviet’s invasion of Hungry in 1956. (The WWP liked the idea.)

 

International ANSWER has evolved into one of the most significant “go-to” organizations for the Democrats when protest rallies are needed for opposing US foreign policy. ANSWER and the WWP that it fronts have occasionally raised some alarms even in the left-wing of the Democratic camp. David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief for the Nation Magazine, wrote a column in the November 1-7, 2002 edition of The L.A. Weekly entitled, “Behind the Placards: The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement.” In that piece, he wrote:

The WWP does have the shock troops and talent needed to construct a quasi-mass demonstration. But the bodies have to come from elsewhere. So WWPers create fronts and trim their message, and anti-war Americans, who presumably don’t share WWP sentiments, have an opportunity to assemble and register their stand against the war. At the same time, WWP activists, hiding their true colors, gain a forum where thousands of people listen to their exhortations. Is this a good deal — or a dangerous one? Who’s using whom?

The infuriating paradox is that these groups would lurch away from the Dems should their goals ever reach near-fruition because progressive ideals are truly an anathema to them. Gay rights, abortion rights, racial equality, and religious freedom cannot survive unless they’re within the environs of representative government, and it is that very representation that’s so antithetical to their world view.

 

No one, Left, Right, libertarian, or centrist may seek redress against a government unless its leaders rule by the consent of the governed. Unfortunately Democrats, who would have just as much to lose should these groups escalate their prominence and influence, are utilizing their assets for short-term advantage despite the long-term consequences.

 

Today’s Republicans seem ill-equipped to counter them. If they vigorously support border security, they’re cast as being anti-immigrant, instead of anti-illegal immigrant. When they aspire to hold bad-acting nations accountable, those efforts are portrayed as hegemonic if they dare buck the UN veto power of nations possessing vested interests and relations with those same bad actors.

 

As a nation, America’s key weakness is our unwillingness to loudly define the sophistry of those who wish us ill and publicly address, on the international stage, those motives that actually drive certain countries to impede us.

 

Diplomacy is artificial and dangerous when its application puts at risk more lives than would the action it might otherwise reject. Just as we’d never expect the successful prosecution of a defendant whose relatives are on the jury, so we cannot hope for the UN Security Council to apply justice against its dictatorial allies.

 

Tragically, it is this very impediment that’s too often embraced by the aforementioned imposters currently embedded in the Democratic Party. They’ll always claim that we should opt for peace and not war. But the absence of war doesn’t equal peace if that absence perpetuates the ongoing butchery (or suffering) of an enslaved people under a government determined to proliferate weapons to jihadists fixated on our demise.

These zealots, masquerading as Democrats, know this and cling to it. When will this once great party remember that there are more effective ways to challenge their opposition than by subordinating our nation’s interests to the will of other countries in exchange for their approval?

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


Alan Nathan, a combative centrist and "militant moderate," a columnist, and the nationally syndicated talk show host of "Battle Line With Alan Nathan" on the Radio America Network.


We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com