Paul Wolfowitz, the chief architect of the Iraq War, now wants the United States to help refugees. No, not the estimated 4.8 million Iraqis forced to flee their homes in a war he and other pro-Israeli neoconservatives planned as far back as 1992. Instead, the unlikely humanitarian, having brought “democracy” to the Iraqi people in 2003, has turned his attention this year to “the plight of North Korean refugees in China.”
In a June 16 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “How to Help North Korea’s Refugees,” ((Paul Wolfowitz, “How to Help North Korea’s Refugees,” Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2009.)) the visiting scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute expresses his hope that President Obama and South Korean President Lee, who were meeting that day, would find the time to address “this purely humanitarian issue.”
While it’s hard to imagine any U.S. administration taking anything Wolfowitz says seriously after the Iraq debacle, Americans should still take note. Whenever a Zionist poses as a humanitarian, it can be taken as axiomatic that Israel stands to benefit somehow – often, if not always, at the expense of U.S. interests.
But how, it may be reasonably asked, could Israel possibly gain from Wolfowitz’s championing of North Korean refugees?
One obvious benefit is that it diverts the spotlight from Israeli crimes in Palestine. The best known example of this strategy is the Save Darfur coalition, which, as the Jerusalem Post once bragged, “was actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish community.” Eliot Engel’s attempt to deflect international criticism of Israel’s apartheid wall exemplifies this ploy. “Now millions of African people face genocide,” the Democrat Congressman from New York protested, “and the UN’s top priority is condemning the Israeli security fence that saves lives on both sides of the security barrier.” ((Ned Goldstein, “Save Darfur: Zionist Conspiracy?” World War 4 Report, October 1, 2006.))
Not surprisingly, we also find that those in the forefront of advocacy for North Korean refugees are pro-Israelis. In his op-ed, Wolfowitz specifically commends Senators Sam Brownback and Dianne Feinstein and Representatives Ed Royce and Gary Ackerman for “pressing the issue.” While it would be difficult to find more than a handful of members of Congress who do not at least publicly support Israel, those singled out for praise are among its staunchest apologists on Capitol Hill. So, unless Zionists actually care more about the world’s refugees (provided they are not Palestinian), something is amiss here.
Weaponizing Human Rights
In explaining the reasons for “inaction” on the North Korean refugee issue, Wolfowitz provides a hint as to a less transparent benefit for Israel. “Unfortunately,” he writes, “many U.S. government officials seem … reluctant to do anything that might jeopardize negotiations with North Korea.”
This oblique criticism refers to the intense struggle between the State Department and the neocons for control of Korean policy, which was particularly pronounced during the Bush administration. While the career diplomats at Foggy Bottom had, in the words of chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill, “no interest in weaponizing human rights,” this was precisely the approach taken by the neocons.
The controversial North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004, sponsored by Christian Zionist Sam Brownback, created the post of special envoy for human rights. Jay Lefkowitz, the Orthodox Jewish appointee, couldn’t have been more provocative in his dealings with Pyongyang. As Suzy Kim and John Feffer wrote in Foreign Policy in Focus, “Lefkowitz deliberately overstepped his bounds to undermine the nuclear talks by linking them to human rights.” ((Suzy Kim and John Feffer, “Hardliners Target Détente with North Korea,” Foreign Policy in Focus, February 11, 2008.))
Predictably, the end result of this and other neocon provocations ((Maidhc Ó Cathail, “The Crisis Provocateurs,” Dissident Voice, September 1, 2009.)) was a nuclear-armed North Korea.
A diplomatic disaster for Washington, a nuclear Pyongyang is a geostrategic boon to Tel Aviv, however. In their relentless campaign to induce the United States to attack Iran,
pro-Israelis invariably hype the North Korean nuclear threat. It serves as an associative warning ((Jeff Gates, “Crisis in North Korea – What a Surprise…” Criminal State, June 30, 2009.)) of the danger of not preventing the “mad Mullahs” in Tehran from also acquiring nuclear weapons.
But what about Wolfowitz’s professed concern for the “probably between 100,000 to 400,000” North Korean refugees?
In addition to the nearly 5 million Iraqis displaced by Wolfowitz’s War for Israel, some 3.9 million Palestinian refugees have been generated by that state’s expansionist ideology.
If Paul Wolfowitz really gave a damn about refugees, he would renounce Zionism.