For his second inaugural speech US President George W. Bush began with "liberty" and ended with "liberty." He elevated liberty to be "the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time," and declared the US will seek the end of tyranny and support "democratic movements and institutions" around the world. He repeated the same good/evil dichotomy as a confrontation between freedom and oppression.
His variety of "idealism" is not only a sham it's dangerous, because it means that he does not acknowledge the wrongs of his unilateral foreign policy, and that he will actually expand and intensify it. He used false pretenses to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands in the process, and has not said a word of reflection. The same goes for the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the International Criminal Court.
About the way many countries were opposed to the invasion, he even said "division among free nations is a primary goal of freedoms enemies." On the very day of the inauguration, Vice President Dick Cheney went on television and talked of the possibility of war with Iran and said things that seemed to sound like they could incite an attack on Iran by Israel. Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, named North Korea, Iran, and four other nations "outposts of tyranny."
One view of the situation holds that Bush's comments were only statements of principle, and that his administration will really be taking a more pragmatic approach. He said also that "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling." That is somewhat more moderate than "regime change." But the possibility exists that situation could take a turn for the worse there is not a fundamental change in the way American leadership thinks.
It is as of yet unclear what influence the start of a new US administration will have on the Korean peninsula. What is clear is that there has to be visible progress in the North Korean nuclear issue within the next few months. President Bush needs to make it clear in his upcoming State of the Union Address that he abandons hostile policy towards North Korea if that is going to be accomplished. After that comes North Korean's human rights.
The Hankyoreh, 22 January 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
For his second inaugural speech US President George W. Bush began with "liberty" and ended with "liberty." He elevated liberty to be "the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time," and declared the US will seek the end of tyranny and support "democratic movements and institutions" around the world. He repeated the same good/evil dichotomy as a confrontation between freedom and oppression.
His variety of "idealism" is not only a sham it's dangerous, because it means that he does not acknowledge the wrongs of his unilateral foreign policy, and that he will actually expand and intensify it. He used false pretenses to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands in the process, and has not said a word of reflection. The same goes for the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the International Criminal Court.
About the way many countries were opposed to the invasion, he even said "division among free nations is a primary goal of freedoms enemies." On the very day of the inauguration, Vice President Dick Cheney went on television and talked of the possibility of war with Iran and said things that seemed to sound like they could incite an attack on Iran by Israel. Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, named North Korea, Iran, and four other nations "outposts of tyranny."
One view of the situation holds that Bush's comments were only statements of principle, and that his administration will really be taking a more pragmatic approach. He said also that "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling." That is somewhat more moderate than "regime change." But the possibility exists that situation could take a turn for the worse there is not a fundamental change in the way American leadership thinks.
It is as of yet unclear what influence the start of a new US administration will have on the Korean peninsula. What is clear is that there has to be visible progress in the North Korean nuclear issue within the next few months. President Bush needs to make it clear in his upcoming State of the Union Address that he abandons hostile policy towards North Korea if that is going to be accomplished. After that comes North Korean's human rights.
The Hankyoreh, 22 January 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] Bush's 'Feigned Idealism' and Korean Peninsula |
