Topic: Foreign Policy
Everywhere Arms Races Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama claim that both North Korea and Iran must be prevented from developing nuclear capabilities to prevent arms races in North East Asia and the Near East. But the United States of America began the international nuclear arms race more than sixty years ago and has never taken the task of eliminating nuclear weapons seriously. So yes, as ye sow, so shall ye reap! Why should anyone expect otherwise.by John Kozy
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama claim that both North Korea and Iran must be prevented from developing nuclear capabilities to prevent arms races in North East Asia and the Near East. Clinton warned that North Korea's refusal to discuss its nuclear program could escalate tensions and provoke an arms race in northeast Asia and that a nuclear-armed Iran is "going to spark an arms race" in the Middle East. And the President said, "It's very important for the world community to speak to countries like Iran and North Korea and encourage them to take a path that does not result in a nuclear arms race in places like the Middle East."
Now it is well known that Americans are not very good at geography. That the Secretary of State and the President fall into this class of ignorant Americans is surprising. So lets look at some geography.
The North East Asian countries in North Korea's proximity are The Russian Federation, Mongolia, China, and Japan. Both the Russian Federation and China have been nuclear powers for many years. Japan enjoys protection from America's nuclear umbrella. That leaves merely Mongolia as the only nation that could still get in the race, yet not a peep has been heard out of Mongolia in objection to North Korea's nuclear development. What kind of race could this possibly be? North Korea comes in last.
A similar situation exists in the Middle East. Seventeen nations exist in Iran's proximity: Afghanistan, Bahrain, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Yemen. The Israel, Pakistan, and India are already nuclear powers. There are conflicts taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen brought on by the War on Terror. Lebanon has been in political turmoil for decades. That leaves Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Turkmenistan. None has been very vocal about Iran's nuclear programs. So again, what kind of race could this possibly be if before you start to run, three runners have already taken the win, place, and show positions?
Clinton's and Obama's claims are difficult to understand. The United States of America began the international nuclear arms race more than sixty years ago. The country has never taken the task of eliminating nuclear weapons seriously. So yes, as ye sow, so shall ye reap! Why should anyone expect otherwise.
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Kozy only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Kozy is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
John, great article. In principle, I agree with your underlying theme, taking our status with nuclear weapons doesn't serve as a great example to others. However, its not really Sec. State Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc. who are "claiming" that Iran should not develop nuclear capabilities, Iran is a signatory of the Non-profliferation Treaty- signed by them in 1968 and ratified by them in 1970, thus, they themselves have agreed by international legally binding treaty NOT to develop nuclear weapons. Since then, Iran has NOT withdrawn from the NPT nor have they forsaken it, therefore, it's the legal position of Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons, not Clinton, Obama or Bush. In the case of North Korea, they were a signatory until 2003, but have since pulled out, and this is more transparent than Iran, as they refuse to recognize the NPT in the face of US nuclear weapons based in and near south Korea (battlefied nukes and aircraft carrier based nukes and submarine nukes). In regards to the general thrust of your article, regarding North Korea, I agree with you especally in light of the fact that we allow Israel to maintain a handful of nuclear weapons, and they, as the North Koreans are also NOT signatories of the NPT, yet we do not sanction or boycott Israel for that fact.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
