Justified Double Standards in

US Foreign Policy to Avoid Nuclear Disaster

By: Behshad Hastibakhsh (January 29th 2003)

The existing double standards in United States' foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea are a political necessity to avoid the large-scale nuclear war.

At the first glance, Iraq and North Korea are nothing more than two developing countries with populations living in poverty and despair.  Both counties are rich in resources and human capital; they are yet ruled by political elites whose military ambitions include defiance of Pax Americana.  Interestingly enough, the similarities end right here. 

When George W. Bush labels Iraq and North Korea as part of ‘Axis of Evil’, he makes an indirect reference to their nuclear programs.  This characterization is a bold step to generate worldwide awareness about the most serious threat facing international security, namely the nuclear holocaust.    

George W. speaks bluntly about the possibility of ‘nuclear blackmail’ by dictatorial regimes in Iraq and North Korea.  His words mirror the geopolitical realities in a dangerous world. 

Let us reflect:

The Cuban Missile crisis has unquestionably been the most publicized nuclear showdown, but it has not been the only incident in its kind.  In other occasions, nuclear disasters have been averted thanks to détente between cold war superpowers and the gradual establishment of an international nuclear regime.

This regime has been developed with an understanding that a nuclear exchange or accident would create a losing scenario with no military victors emerging at the end.  With such understanding, the United States, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), and China, have established well structured command and control mechanisms to safeguard their nuclear arsenals.

Meanwhile, the emergence of India, Pakistan, and now North Korea as nuclear powers has had a destabilizing impact in international relations leading to fears about the prospects of a deliberate or accidental nuclear exchange.

For five decades, the Indian subcontinent has been the hotspot for fundamentalist religious and ethnic conflict. While the Muslim-Hindu divide has its origins in early days of partition, Pakistan and India have learned to live in fear and anxiety and mutual containment.  By all accounts, experts have estimated that a single nuclear exchange between these two nations would have powerful impacts instantly killing and wounding up to 15 million people. 

Considering the overall impact of a nuclear exchange, world powers have advocated a regional détente in the Indian subcontinent to avoid an accidental war that could inadvertently include China, Russia, and the United States.

As the world powers continue to mediate regional conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, the threat of an accidental or state sponsored nuclear war remains a reality.

We live in a dangerous world where peace is an illusion due to self-interested nature of nation-states. 

Under these circumstances, the United States carries the burden of responsibility to protect the world from the Nuclear Exchange. 

True, the United States is acting in self-interest. And in the process, the world is spared a disaster of unknown proportions to mankind.

To critics, who complain about double standards in US foreign policy, one should say: No doubt, the American interest in the Middle East is oil driven.  However, some of their global security concerns are legitimate.

There is no “cookie-cutter” approach in dealing with Iraq and North Korea. 

In the case of Iraq, for example, the United States’ war cries may seem disturbing and lead to inevitable sufferings by average people on the streets of Baghdad and beyond.  This suffering pale in comparison to what could happen in the absence of a conventional US-led war. 

Iraq’s recent history alone justifies a war, as its militarism dating back to early 1970s has continued to destabilize the Middle East.   

In face of future nuclear blackmail by Iraq, the United States is justified to launch an immediate offensive and to wipe out the country’s military regime.

In case of North Korea, history necessitates caution and pragmatism.  The country’s geographic proximity to China, Japan, and Taiwan requires the United States to take a controlled approach in the interest of avoiding the nuclear holocaust.  Considering the alternative of a nuclear blackmail by North Korea, the United States is trying a behind the scene to reach a peaceful settlement which could even include Pyongyang’s acceptance in the “Nuclear Club”. 

Overall, the Unites States’ arrogant foreign policy serves one major purpose: AVOIDING A NUCLEAR WAR.

Let us remember that we live in a dangerous world where peace is just an illusion.