Last week, North Korea marked the American Independence Day by launching some fireworks of their own: seven ballistic missiles. The isolated communist nation launched three short range missiles, three medium range missiles, and test fired their new Taepodong II long range missile. The short range missiles are capable of hitting South Korea, the medium range missiles are capable of hitting Japan, and the long range missile, if it had done anything more than disintegrate less than a minute into the test, would be capable of hitting the west coast of the United States.
The regime of Kim Jong Il has said for a long time that they want to have bilateral talks with the United States, and have stalled in six party talks with the U.S., Russia, Japan, South Korea, and China in an attempt to get them. An op-ed piece in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal pointed out that analysis of North Korea's industrial strategy essentially defines a policy dedicated to extortion: they will neglect all other industry in an effort to expand their nuclear program, so that they can bully other nations into providing monetary compensation to them. President Bush made it clear after the launch that if North Korea wanted bilateral talks with the United States, they'd done precisely the opposite of what they needed to do to get them. The international community is now
scrambling to figure out how to respond to this bizarre development.
Simultaneously, there's an ever-worsening situation in the Middle East, as Iran is about to be
referred back to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program. Both the North Koreans and the Iranians claim to have the "right" to develop nuclear technology. Both are also in flagrant violation of treaties they signed, one of which got Jimmy Carter his Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, let's consider this for a moment. Let's say, for the sake of Arguments, that Iran and North Korea have the "right" to develop nuclear technology. Given that the "right" to develop nuclear technology is actually that, a right, doesn't that right also carry with it certain responsibilities? For example, wouldn't the Iranians have a responsibility to develop uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors with full disclosure and transparency to the IAEA? Wouldn't North Korea have a responsibility to announce its missile tests in advance and allow them to be monitored? Aren't both nations responsible for abiding by the treaties to which they are signatories?
Let's take another example: India and Pakistan. Now, in a number of ways, India and Pakistan in the late 1990's up to today mirror the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The relationship is one of disputes over the government of neutral territory; it's marked by distrust, ideological and cultural differences. Like their Cold War mirrors, India and Pakistan are engaged in a close arms race, maintaining the same strategic deterrant capabilities that prevented nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Now, the fact that I'm not particularly uncomfortable with the prospect of Pakistan having nuclear weapons would seem to serve as strong evidence that The Fly is not inherently opposed to Muslim nations having nuclear technology.
The other day, India had a test of a long range ballistic missile. Although this was eyed by the international community with some degree of cautious reserve, India did something novel: they
announced it beforehand, did it openly and diplomatically, and allowed the tests to be monitored by the international community. Pakistan has approached the development of their nuclear program in a similar way. Also, India and Pakistan, despite their distrust of each other, have been
making a concerted effort toward diplomacy with one another. India and Pakistan have been completely transparent, they have abided by the treaties which they were signatories to, and even though their respective nuclear programs have been targeted at
each other, they have still made a stronger effort at diplomacy and reconciliation (even
in light of recent events).
North Korea and Iran, by comparison, have been secretive, refused full transparency, broken numerous treaties to which they were signatory, and balked at multilateral international pressure. In addition, Iran and North Korea both have long and proven ties to terrorism: the Iranian regime has been proven to be
supplying terrorists in Iraq with funds and materials, and they're the leading supporter of
Hezbollah. North Korea has exported missile supplies to such nations as Libya, before Colonel Qaddhafi decided to come clean and reveal North Korea's illicit shipments. Kim Jong Il's policy treatises call for the destabilization of the region for North Korean financial gains, and the Iranian mullahs have various reasons for wanting an unstable Middle East, those reasons being both ideological and financial.
Now, my question is this: these things having been established, are the Iranians and North Koreans
really abiding by the responsibilities that go along with the so-called "right" to nuclear technology? I say they are not; if they were, they'd be approaching the situation in the same way that India and Pakistan have. Iran would be developing nuclear enrichment openly and publically, with international supervision and monitoring, and North Korea would be using nuclear technology for electricity, not for weapons.
Also, as a side note, and then I absolutely need to go to bed: with North Korea testing long range missiles, and already possessing nuclear warheads, aren't you
filthy hippies out there glad that we've got that fancy missile defense system that was "too expensive" and "would never work"?
Tomorrow I'll start analyzing the quickly-developing situation in Israel; for now, I feel the need to at least mention that Israel has
bombarded Beirut's international airport, forcing its closure. This conflict with Lebanon, which has arisen basically overnight, is simultaneous to the Gaza offensive; given Hezbollah's motives, history, and international ties, it's not out of the question to consider the possibility that the deteriorating situation in southern Lebanon may be a reaction to Israel's offensive in Gaza. More on this tomorrow.
