H-Bomb: Rest of the world just as dangerous as North Korea
On January 6, North Korea claimed to have successfully test fired a hydrogen nuclear bomb. The move sent ripples across the international community. The New York Times reported that the “United Nations Security Council condemned North Korea for its nuclear test on Wednesday”. The White House was measured in its response as it raised doubts concerning North Korea’s claims.
The possession of sophisticated weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a country like North Korea is indeed a matter of deep concern. The East Asian nation is ruled by 32-year-old Kim Jong-un whose family has maintained dictatorial control over the country since decades now. In January 2014, Kim Jong-un executed his uncle Jang Song Thaek on charges of “attempting to overthrow the state”. Media reports claimed that he was devoured by 120 hungry dogs.
Such executions or purges are said to be common in the tightly controlled country with very little information coming out of the place. College students in North Korea are also supposed to imitate the supreme leader’s haircut. Media is state-controlled and tensions with neighbouring South Korea are routine. The international community and specifically South Korea has sufficient reasons to be worried about the growing nuclear capabilities of North Korea. The dictatorial and repressive nature of the state speaks for itself.
But can the nuclear powers of the world take a moral high ground against North Korea?
Maybe yes, because some of them happen to be democratically-ruled countries with a free press, independent judiciary and, most importantly, constitutionally guaranteed rights for the citizens. However, the major known nuclear powers can either be accused of state sponsored repression of civilian population or state sponsored aggression against fellow nations or state sponsored terrorism.
Let’s take the example of Beijing which has come out with a strong reaction to the nuclear hydrogen bomb test pledging to “firmly push for denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula”. Now China, very much like North Korea, is a dictatorship, sponsored by the Communist Party. China continues to systematically crush the rights of its own citizens in order to further the Communist Party rule. The ugliest manifestation of this policy was the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 which saw the government unleashing tank fire on pro-democracy protesters.
In Xinjiang province, China prevents Muslims from fasting during the holy month of Ramzan besides heavily clamping on their other religious rights. Christians aren’t spared either with restrictions on churches and the historical problems in Tibetan region involving Buddhist monks need not be even mentioned. To add to that the Communist Party only wants its proxies to fight elections in Hong Kong and the dragon’s activities in the South China Sea have been giving other nations in the region a headache.
With an exhaustive list of state excesses, can the world community recognise China as a responsible nuclear power? Is Russia one? Trying to reclaim lost world leadership, Russia has plunged itself in the middle of the Syrian conflict by backing Bashar al-Assad who stands accused of killing his own people. Today, when the world has largely deserted Assad under whose watch Syria has underwent systematic annihilation, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solidly backing him. In fact, Putin has also expressed admiration for Donald Trump who has occasionally indulged in anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim and anti-women rhetoric all through his campaign trail.
How can one overlook Russian expansionist tendencies and its annexation of the region of Crimea in Ukraine? Russia continues to flex its muscles “like a boss” as relations deteriorate with the Baltic States such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Considering Russia’s recent behaviour and its giant stockpile of nuclear weapons, can Russia be considered as a responsible nuclear power?
Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons as of now and might not possess one for the next 15 years if the Iranian Nuclear Deal goes through. But if Iran ever succeeds in assuming nuclear weapons, will it be a good thing for the world? The country’s supreme leader is a religious cleric who sits above the civilian government. The previous supreme leader Imam Ruhollah Khameini issued the infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie calling for his assassination for blasphemy which caused an unprecedented diplomatic standoff.
The Iranian government very much pursues a sectarian foreign policy which is evident from its backing of Shiite Bashar al-Assad in the name of fighting terrorism (which also happens to be Russia’s stand).
Now shift focus to India and Pakistan who are constantly on the lookout to outsmart each other. The two nuclear neighbours have fought four wars and are far from resolving the outstanding disputes, most notably being the region of Kashmir. India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in its land. Recently, former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf spoke to BBC Urdu referring to terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-i-Taiba as “freedom fighters” who are fighting for the cause of Kashmir.
Pakistan has a fragile democracy which has repeatedly been overrun by the state military. In its over 60 years of independence, Pakistan has had only successful democratic transition. India, on the other hand, is far more democratic and stable but with its own set of problems. Last year, India’s defence minister Manohar Parrikar spoke about “neutralising terrorists through terrorists”. This would obviously mean training and providing terror groups with money and ammunition to fight other terrorists in Pakistan whom the Indian government wants to neutralise.
While telling Pakistan to not differentiate between good and bad terrorists, Indian defence minister himself seems to have forgotten about the concept. Also, Indian Armed Forces continue to be accused of human rights violations in insurgency hit areas in the north and north east. Despite repeated reminders from rights groups and numerous reports calling for amendments in or repeal of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSAPA) which provides the Indian security forces with sweeping powers in insurgency hit areas, successive governments have chosen to turn a blind eye towards the issue. Human rights abuses by the forces in places like Kashmir and Manipur under the cover of AFSPA continue to alienate the civilian population.
The Pakistan army is not much different with its own track record of human rights violations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Baluchistan. Certain politicians and media personalities continually whip up sentiments in both the countries as they boast about their nuclear status. With the two countries sharing a long history of wars and innumerable instances of firing across the line of control, can their possession of nuclear weapons be earmarked as responsible in the current charged up atmosphere?
The state of Israel is another offender. Israel is quick to flag concerns relating to Iran’s nuclear programme but seldom bothers to look in its own backyard. Israel continues to occupy Palestinian land and every single aggression of the Israeli state results in mass civilian casualties on Palestinian soil. Israel cannot justify civilian deaths in the name of obliterating Hamas nor can it deny the presence of apartheid like discrimination against its Arab citizens.
Finally, we come to the troika of the United States, United Kingdom and France, the nuclear torchbearers of the western world. The British and French went around the globe enslaving populations and converting independent countries into dependent colonies. Their history speaks for itself and now they find themselves allied with the United States which has pursued an alarmingly offensive foreign policy. American intellectuals like Noam Chomsky have themselves spoken against American keenness for regime changes through military invasions.
But have the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan really solved the problem? Both the invasions resulted in mass civilian deaths and the world still doesn’t know how to combat ISIS and Taliban. To make matters worse, some critics accuse the United States of sponsoring certain terror groups to further their own interests.
The nuclear armed nations need to get one thing straight: they need to lead by example. If nations possessing nuclear weapons want to prevent nuclear proliferation then they themselves need to cultivate a peaceful environment. They’ve got to desist from military invasions, wars, occupying other country’s land and indulging in a weapons race with neighbouring or other countries. These countries cannot let their own nuclear stockpile go up while simultaneously insisting other countries to resist from going nuclear. They’ve got to head towards reducing their existing nuclear stockpile.
Since actions speak louder than words, nuclear armed nations should act first. The weaker nations have to be taken in confidence. If the non-nuclear nations feel that the nuclear powers are preparing to go to war, invade other countries and occupy land then it is natural on their part to develop their own stockpile in contravention of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Arguments emanating from reapolitik and national security would make them blind to the NPT which in its essence is indeed discriminatory and illogical.
Why should only certain countries have the right to nuclear weapons? What makes them more qualified or responsible enough to possess a nuclear weapon? Why shouldn’t they too give up on their nuclear weapons thus ending nuclear monopoly and nuclear threats as a whole? However, realism demands that it would be foolish to waste time in revisiting the NPT but what is certain is that most peace-loving humans would agree that nuclear proliferation needs to be prevented for the safety of the world.
If nuclear nations lead by example by cutting on their stockpile, reducing tensions with other nations, opposing unnecessary military invasions and most importantly by bestowing rights and privileges over their own citizens then the situation is bound to improve. Easing of tensions would certainly pave the way for a more peaceful world and hopefully nuclear non-proliferation.
Non-nuclear nations should also invest their time and resources in giving their citizens a higher standard of life with improved education and health facilities. Everyone needs to realise that bombs which risk human presence on the planet Earth are better kept as limited in number as possible.
Peace is a process, not a conclusion. If the peace process of building trust and collaboration among the nations of the world is not effectively worked upon then the notion that the world’s countries are at war with each other will only strengthen. As a result, not only Pyongyang but many smaller nations would be test firing hydrogen nuclear bombs and it would be too late to act.