The failures of US diplomacy and the apparent inability of the United States to serve as a guarantor of stability in the world's most acute affairs is a direct result of years of deceit and falsehood in international relations, says Ted Galen Carpenter, a Cato Institute researcher specializing in foreign policy.
Credibility and reliability are two pillars of successful diplomacy, as very few countries would be willing to negotiate and seek compromises with a party that barely respects them.
Several consecutive US administrations have ignored this principle, leaving behind a legacy of lies that have hampered the country's foreign policy, writes Carpenter in an article for The American Conservative.
The author links the current diplomatic deadlock to the North Korean nuclear issue with a long history of violations of the agreements and non-compliance with promises on the part of Washington.
"During his recent Asian tour, US President Donald Trump invited North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table and 'do what's right', that is, to give up nuclear weapons and missile program, "recalls the author.
It is assumed that such a concession would result in a lifting of sanctions and a more normal relationship with the international community. But, unfortunately, Pyongyang has a vast list of reasons not to trust these appeals.
Carpenter goes on to enumerate the most prominent cases of Washington's duplicity, which justify North Korea's cautious attitude.
First, the nuclear agreement with Iran, which, despite the other participants testifying that Tehran meets the agreed conditions, is criticized by the US, one of its promoters at the time, and runs the risk of termination on the initiative of Donald Trump, with consequences of this step.
Second, the journalist recalls the deception in Libya, which has shown two unpleasant sides to the US.
One is that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to end the nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Seven years later, the US and NATO intervened in Libya's internal conflict on the rebel side, and its air and ballistic missile strikes helped to overthrow Gaddafi and the Arab country's subsequent fate.
Another, at that time, the UN Security Council passed a resolution that aimed to restrict military intervention aimed at protecting civilians. China and Russia, faced with US statements that it was a security operation, did not exercise their veto power over the decision. But the real purpose - the overthrow of Gaddafi - has been revealed only when the bombing has begun.
The author cites the statement of Defense Secretary Robert Gates (2006-2011) on the Moscow reaction:
"The Russians even thought that they had been cheated in Libya, abstained from vetoing the UN resolution because it presupposed the prevention of massacres ... but it soon became clear that NATO was seeking to overthrow Gaddafi. have begun to veto any similar resolution, including that of Syria directed against President Assad, "Gates said.
Another duplicity is the expansion of NATO to the east. Moscow claims to have accepted the reunification of Germany, on condition that NATO ceased its expansion towards the borders of the USSR.
Two senior officials, US Secretary of State James Baker and West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher both offered verbal assurances that the Atlantic Alliance would be limited to German borders.
Clearly, this was not the case, and the US "explanation" is based on the fact that there are no formal documents that refer to such guarantees. Such things "do not inspire confidence among governments," Carpenter points out.
NATO's military invasion of Serbia in 1999 - which a weakened Russia could not prevent - led to occupation of the Serbian historical region of Kosovo. Nine years later, the province officially decided to gain independence from Belgrade.
"It was clear that Russia and possibly China would have vetoed a resolution on the Security Council, so the US and its allies completely shied away from the UN and endorsed Kosovo's independence on its own," comments the author.
For Americans, it is painful to admit that his country has acquired a well-founded reputation for cheating on its foreign policy, but all evidence demonstrates it, writes Carpenter.
This "American history of duplicity and betrayal" is among the reasons why it is so difficult to solve the North Korean crisis through diplomacy.
"Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for being unsympathetic has complicated US foreign policy goals. It's a classic example of a great power being thrown on its own foot," concludes the analyst.
