Hypocrisy approaching nuclear levels

Contrary to prevailing Western sentiment, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is not a complete madman. After being included in the “Axis of Evil” by George W. a couple of years ago and seeing what happened to a nuclear free Iraq, the rational thing for him to do was crank up his nuclear program.

Hence, no one should be surprised that North Korea is now the ninth member of the nuclear club - joining the five permanent members of the Security Council, Israel, India and Pakistan.

Kim Jong-il has virtually guaranteed the territorial integrity of his country. No nuclear power has ever had its territorial sovereignty invaded by another country.

North Korea’s progression to nuclear superpower confirms basal elements of the human psyche - self-preservation nearly always comes first, even if it means forcing a few million people to go hungry in the process.

There is yet another important message about human nature in the latest nuclear tussle. It’s all about double standards. The threat by the United States to request the Security Council to beef up sanctions against North Korea is act of hypocrisy of nuclear dimensions.

The most aggressive nation on earth; the only nation that has exploded atomic weapons on people (killing hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki); the nation that has more nuclear firepower than the rest of the 192 countries on the earth combined; and the nation that militarily dominates the earth, tries to mount its wonky moral high horse when an impoverished (albeit badly intentioned) economic and military bit player in the geopolitical arena gets a few of its own nuclear toys. It would be hilarious, if it wasn’t true.

We should not be surprised that the US is grumpy. History shows when important strategic interests are at play, nations ultimately always act on the basis of self-interest.

But what is dispiriting is the black hole that has engulfed the intellectual rigor and wiped the memories of western politicians and social commentators when it comes to their judgment on international affairs.

Nearly every commentary on the North Korea nuclear issue in the increasingly parochial western press has applied the same herd mentality. United States good; North Korea evil - let’s get the bad guy for wanting to get stronger. The media has swallowed the George W. “good versus evil” folly, hook, line and distasteful sinker.

It’s time for a reality check and to put an end to the mother of all double standards. People and nations aren’t divided into good and evil. There is a bit of both in each entity. Certainly North Korea is not wholly evil and the US is hardly virtue personified. To the extent that a moral book keeping exercise can be undertaken, the best indicator is an agent’s actions. On this front the US fares dismally.

It is the most aggressive nation on earth. Since World War II, the US has used force against another state on more than 30 occasions - the most notable examples being Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cambodia, Korea, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice).

Some of these interventions were lawful. Some certainly were not, such as Nicaragua and the present Iraq campaign. Notably, despite this, the sum total of the adverse consequences that have been imposed against the US, in the form of international sanctions, is zero. When it comes to doing what it wants, the US enjoys unprecedented freedom. This is becoming increasingly the case.

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States is totally dominant in all matters of importance. As noted by former Judge of the International Court of Justice, C.G. Weeramantry, this is unique in human history: “never has it occurred before that one single nation has been universally looked upon as the world’s leader, the pre-eminent power of the world. No nation in history ever had this position, suddenly descending on it, of being the universally acknowledged superpower of the world”.

So before we start toeing the US line on North Korea, let’s encourage the US to engage in a bit of self-reflection. Nuclear weapons, and in fact all weapons, are a scourge on humanity. Instruments whose effectiveness is principally measured by how many lives they can obliterate don’t have many redeeming features.

Production of all weapons should be discouraged. The elimination of each weapon, irrespective of whose hands it is in is a small but important step down the road of universal peace.

Thus, of course North Korea should be hindered from further developing nuclear weapons capability. But just as pressing is the need for the United States to be stripped of its gluttony of nuclear weapons.

Before we join in a possible US-led pulverisation of North Korea we should require it to disarm some of its nuclear arsenal. This is the best hope that the world has to finally rein in the monster in the northern hemisphere.

Henceforth every US criticism of the North Korean nuclear program should be met with the inquiry, “but what are you doing about your nuclear arsenal?” Only once the US has taken action on this front and finally starts fulfilling (and indeed exceeding) its nuclear weapons reduction obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should we join it in applying pressure on North Korea to end its nuclear program.

Does this mean that the US will go it alone and if necessary invade North Korea? Three years ago the answer would almost certainly have been yes. But the US public is increasingly losing its appetite to engage in (what are in effect) solo fights as a result of the ongoing debacle that is Iraq.

That’s why the US is trying to elicit the support of the Security Council and European powers - all of whom it arrogantly brushed aside (with the exception of the UK) during the Iraq invasion - in the skirmish with North Korea.

In any event, this is the best chance the world has to rein in the tyrant that is modern day America. It is a risky strategy but the risk of not taking the opportunity to dampen the military dominance of the US is higher.