Before I start, this post will jump from a series of random topics that can be discussed in depth on their own. My hope is that these individuals pieces will be strung together by the reader allowing for a grand view of some main issues (Hegemony, freedom, violence, and hypocrisy).
Prior to the Boston bombing, the news was clamored with nuclear threats from North Korea (NK). American government officials were interviewed about their thoughts and what course of action needed to be taken. Along with these interviews, the general consensus was that North Korea should not have nuclear weapons. Now, my sources are not extensive but rather just bits of information from various news sources, but I have yet to come across a source that says otherwise, and rightfully so. Why would anyone support North Korea having nuclear weapons? Their leader, from what we have seen tends to be somewhat erratic and unpredictable. Plus his young age makes his unpredictability even more concerning. But my point here is not to condemn their leader or list reasons why North Korea should not have nuclear weapons. I feel like there is already enough of that out there. Rather I want to analyze the situation from a detached and objective perspective and see if the critiques are justified and whether NK should have nuclear weapons....
Lets state some points:
- North Korea is a sovereign country, just like any other country. Meaning they have complete jurisdiction over their operations within their country.
- To my knowledge, Obama has not approached Kim Jong Un. In fact, last time I was watching the news there was no diplomatic tie established between both countries (U.S. & NK), and the government officials that were being interviewed were not supportive of the idea, essentially saying it would be submissive (Hmmmm?).
- Here's a video discussing this by the wonderful Christianne Amanpour. She also mentions other valuable points in this video including the dysfunctional relationship between NK and the world.
- America has nuclear weapons, so does China and other "superpowers". America/other superpowers have not made efforts to eradicate their nuclear weapon arsenal, to the best of my knowledge, and I know it can be done because S. Africa has done so. (Update: Obama has proposed a nuclear-reduction program)
Analyzing these points raises questions:
- Who are Americans to decline North Korea the right to a nuclear program?
- The first obvious reason is the lack of diplomacy. From what I am observing, the U.S. is acting based on presumptions. Yes there is a dysfunctional history between NK and the U.S., as well as the world, but this is a new leader. This is an opportunity to refresh the dialogue between these countries and start anew. But instead of opening a new dialogue between both parties, the U.S. has decided to turn its back on this possibility and act on prejudgments. I personally feel that the stakes are too high for such antics.
- North Korea is a sovereign country that has the right to develop a nuclear program if deemed appropriate by THEIR government. The U.S. and other countries are right to be concerned with this proposal, but the reality of the situation is that there is little they can do. Plus this leads to my second point...
- Is it not hypocritical for superpowers to oppose other countries the right to developing a nuclear program?
- America, along with other superpowers, posses nuclear capabilities but oppose other countries from having the same capabilities (NK, Iran). Clearly you can see the hypocrisy in this proposal. In order for America and other superpowers opposition to hold any weight, they will need to discard their nuclear programs and more importantly their nuclear weapons. Now this proposal sounds much more reasonable, and is one that I personally like. Another proposal would be for America to allow North Korea as well as other countries develop their nuclear programs. This will allow everyone to be on equal playing fields. There are obvious connotations from this proposal as you can imagine, but the point here is not to dwell on the practicality but the principals behind them.
- I will deviate to drive this point home. In America a similar problem has been heavily debated and that issue is gun control. Some people want the right to have a gun to protect themselves from a tyrannical government as well as other dangers and simply because it's an "American thing". Others oppose gun rights and want guns to be removed from society. As you can see there are some parallels between both situations, just scaled differently. America and other superpowers have a history of invading other countries and extending their reach of power a little too far (my opinion). Knowing Americas tendencies, I would be cautious as a smaller country. What I'm trying to say is that developing a nuclear program and nuclear weapons, to some of these countries, could be more of a response to this realization, because how are you going to trust someone who can just shoot you if you don't do as they request. It would be better to at least have some means of fighting back in such instances. I am aware of the potential threats associated with allowing these countries to develop nuclear programs but as I mentioned, I am not trying to validate the practicality of such notions but rather the underlying principals behind each. In a country that believes so strongly in the right of its citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government as well as other threats, it would be absolutely hypocritical to deny these same rights to other countries.
Are the critiques on NK and other "smaller" countries like Iran justified, and should these countries be allowed to develop a nuclear program without the condemnation of other superpowers? Comment with your thoughts. I have my view and opinion on the matter and would like to see what other peoples views are as well. Please keep in mind a few things; I am NOT an expert analyst (These are random thoughts I formulated while reading and watching this news develop), these are mostly objective observations and rebuttals to some of the perspectives on the situation.
One love
One love
