Americans enjoy playing the game of Korean roulette

The world has never been as close to the threshold of a nuclear war as it is now, under the artificially heated confrontation between North and South Korea. But does it have to do with Korea only? Maybe the countries of the Korean peninsula are only poker chips in a large geopolitical game where nothing less than the rule of the U.S. across the Far East is at stake?

It looks like there have been some additions to the "centers of the global tension," this time it is a group of Diaoyu islands. This "tasty morsel" for a long time has been the object of the dispute between Tokyo and Pyongyang. In early April the dispute turned into a virtual military confrontation. The aggravation of a longtime serious territorial dispute in the Far East, coupled with a nuclear threat, did not leave the United States indifferent.

The U.S. secretary of state John Kerry after talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida on April 14th, 2013, stressed that Washington did not intend to change its position on the islands. Kerry said that the U.S. was against changing the status quo around the Senkaku. This remark again signaled not only the interest of the United States in the geopolitical situation in the Far East, but also the desire to ensure its own safety. The guarantors of these security interests of the White House are Japan and China that Washington is committed to protect in a case of a military conflict under the security framework agreement.

Among other topics, John Kerry and Fumio Kishida considered the future of military and strategic ties between Tokyo and Washington. In fact, the fact of the formation of a new US-Japan military alliance was acknowledged. Its important role was noted by the parties not only in the light of recent developments on the Korean peninsula, but also worsening of the territorial disputes in the East China and South China seas.

The meeting took place only a few days after Washington and Tokyo agreed on an acute issue of relocation of U.S. Marine air base at Futenma in Okinawa after the meeting of Heads of Government. For several years, this "geopolitical misunderstanding" had been the main stumbling block in the US-Japan relations and hindered the dialogue between the two countries.

It is safe to say that the U.S. has once again defiantly gave a helping hand to one of the parties to the conflict, saying that it is done in order to maintain fairness and balance, this time in the Far East. It is difficult to say whether this help is justified as no one knows the true intentions of North Korea. Japan, incidentally, is not opposed to supporting the "big American brother." In the meeting with Kerry, Kishida very clearly indicated that a series of disputes can be considered resolved.

As soon as the foreign policy situation has changed, Washington again became a "half-step" closer to Tokyo. Pyongyang does not let it make the other half of the step. The U.S. is using its favorite tactic of "divide and conquer" not even bothering to check the information about the presence of nuclear weapons in North Korea that they claim may be used in the confrontation with Japan on the Korean peninsula.

At the same time, both the government and the military department of North Korea are "teasing" the opponents of the Pentagon, showing them the willingness of nuclear missiles to fight, placing the Korean Peninsula beyond the moral policy framework. In fact, they are placing it on the threshold of a nuclear war. The media is also adding fuel to the fire. For example, Twitter became "famous" for its twit about a launch of missiles from North Korea, and the twit came from the Japanese city of Yokohama. This message understandably caused panic in the city. In the following days (April 10th to 15th) there were a number of similar messages.

As for the reaction to the events of the parties involved in the conflict, it is diametrically opposite. Pyongyang has a typically defensive stance, declaring that, in response to any provocation by the United States and South Korea against North Korea, they would launch a war with nuclear weapons. Seoul calls all allegations of North Korea "provocative threats" and declares its readiness to fight back in case of North Korean provocations.

The U.S., represented by NSC spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden, spoke about Washington's serious attitude to such threats and preparedness for constant interaction with allies in South Korea. In her speech Hayden used the key term "North Korean threat" that gives the U.S. the right to deal with it. Over 50 not participating countries voiced their reaction to the "great Korean confrontation" (as of the evening of April 15).

In essence, they call for a constructive dialogue with North Korea, the refusal of the latter to further tease the opposing countries, especially the United States, the need to increase the overall level of trust to each other and, at the same time, reduce or at least stabilize the "territorial appetites" of the countries. Russia urges the parties to show restraint.

Grigory Logvinov, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia expressed hope that "the point of no return" will not be passed. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he saw any actions of the participants of the conflict that in one way or another add to the already tense situation as negative. Vladimir Putin also expressed his concern about the escalation on the Korean Peninsula, calling on everyone to "... calm down and begin solving the issues ... at the negotiating table."

The question remains: who may benefit from the situation on the Korean Peninsula? The answer is easy, given the situation of general disapproval of North Korea's actions by the international community. The United States stands today as the most powerful fighter with the "North Korean threat" and thus may expand the breadth of its influence in the Far East, unless the worst (the war) happens.

Russia is concerned with recent strengthening of the U.S.  position at Russia's eastern borders. According to the sociological poll conducted back in 2012, over 30 percent of Russians believe that in the end the U.S. will be the winner in diving the Far-Eastern "cake", the economy of a large part of Siberia would fall under the influence of Washington, and this is a strategic reserves of Russia. It seems that these concerns are not unfounded.

The United States essentially ignores the statements of the Russian Federation about Washington's plans for the development of missile defense, which completely ruins the strategic balance and leads to the creation of the capacity of a preemptive strike. The calls to avoid the dictates of power to the detriment of diplomatic principles yield no results either. NATO is actively expanding to the east, and Russia, in fact, finds itself in the ring of the U.S. foreign policy, covered with their "nuclear umbrella" and having lost its strategic ally - China, against which the U.S. is likely preparing political and economic blows. 

It is preparing the same actions against Russia. Protection of the praised American democracy, peace in the Middle and Far East is no more than a farce, habitually acted out by the puppeteers of the State Department. "Export of Democracy" is the slogan of the third millennium marked by a massive extermination of the population of some countries in Asia and Africa. Are Far Eastern regions the next?

Sergei Vasilenkov

Pravda.Ru 

Read the original in Russian

 

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Dmitry Sudakov
*
X