"There
is no conclusive proof that by enriching uranium for the development of weapons
of mass destruction, Iran and North Korea did anything different than
governments that built nuclear arsenals with the implicit consent of the U.S.
and Western Europe, such as India, Israel and Pakistan."
President Obama and Russian President
Medvedev after signing START - the new U.S.-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, in Prague. But is Washington's policy toward Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs hypocrytical?
On the eve of the Prague meeting
between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U. S. President Barack Obama, during
which they will conclude a new agreement to replace the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty signed in 1991, the U.S. government presented its Nuclear
Posture Review, a document that sets out guidelines to follow for the use
of its nuclear arsenal. In this document, Washington agrees not to manufacture
new warheads and not to use them against non-nuclear states which don't possess
them and that respect the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START]. These are circumstance that exclude, according
to the government of our neighboring country, Iran and North Korea.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
The document contains
positive elements, such as a willingness on the part of government in Washington
to lead by example when it comes to dismantling existing nuclear arsenals. It
cannot be overlooked, however, that such pronouncements are consistent with the
inability or unwillingness of the Obama government to reverse some of the
belligerent and hostile impulses characterized by his predecessor. Such
impulses have spurred the arms race, as evidenced by his aspiration to
install an anti-missile shield in Romania and Bulgaria similar to the one
Obama ruled out for the Czech Republic and Poland. Significant in this respect was the response
given yesterday by Moscow, whose ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, asked the
United Stated to provide more details on its new nuclear policy. A day earlier,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed out that his country has the
right to withdraw from START if the quantitative and qualitative increase in
U.S. strategic missile defense significantly diminishes the effectiveness
of Russian strategic nuclear forces.
Moreover, it's noteworthy
that the document states a clear warning to the regimes of Iran and North Korea
- although there is no conclusive proof that by enriching uranium for the
development of weapons of mass destruction, they did anything different than governments
that built nuclear arsenals with the implicit consent of the United States and
Western Europe, such as India, Israel and Pakistan. The tolerance with which
Washington and its allies have treated the weapons projects of these three
nations has led to a process of proliferation that has multiplied global
tension and transformed any condemnation of Korea and Iran into an act of double
standards.
Moreover, it must be
emphasized that Pyongyang's nuclear development program and the one Washington systematically
charges Teheran with pursuing, have inescapably emerged as a result of the
hostile behavior of the United States against nations it considers enemies, and
the implementation by governments of that country of the doctrine of
preventive war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Paradoxically, it is now obvious that
the U.S. invasion of Iraqi territory was not due to possession by the Saddam
Hussein regime of weapons of mass destruction - but to a lack of them. Under
the circumstances, it is at least logical to assume that the Iraqi and North
Korean authorities have at least considered acquiring nuclear arsenals as a way
of preventing, as far as possible, a U.S. military aggression.
With these considerations in
mind, the commitment expressed yesterday by the United States, which in
principle constitutes clear and healthy progress, must be accompanied by an end
to the inconsistency, factionalism and double standards with which the
superpower usually conducts itself when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
