| |
Editorial
Overlooking Pyongyang, bullying Tehran
Consider two 21st century states that challenge the international consensus on key issues. North Korea and Iran each deserve to be repeatedly questioned if not pilloried about how they appear to be above the law when it comes to such crucial issues as nuclear weapons and human rights. North Korea is by its own admission a nuclear weapons state, albeit a pathetic one. Its two tests, part successful, part fizzle, entitle it to some kind of nuclear status that has been achieved at the cost of violating its international treaty commitments. It also continues to test new versions of its notorious Nodong missile that could, in the not-too-distant future, reach the shores of the United States. When it comes to human rights, North Korea is still stuck in the Stalinist era of more than 50 years ago. Kim Jong Il has ensured that the mantle he inherited from his late and equally repressive father, Kim Il Sung, is used to run the country as a secretive, repressed and closed society.
Every now and then escaping refugees come out with new horror stories, for example about the use of starvation and torture as part of government policy to control its citizens. Hence the observation from the office of the UN High Commission for human rights that noted the use of 'torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, public executions, extra judicial and arbitrary detention, the absence of due process and the rule of law, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour.' A seasoned torturer and serial murderer from the past, like Cambodia's Pol Pot, would doubtless approve of how the North Korean authorities like to run their affairs.
Iran is also a repressive society. It's recently concluded presidential election was a travesty. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would probably still have won in an open contest, but his backers were taking no chances and he was declared the victor even before the polls closed. Some protestors have been taken into custody following the elections and Tehran is now engaged in the charade of accusing various Western governments, notably the UK and France, of engaging in all kinds of unbelievable conspiracies to undermine the rule of the ayatollahs. Yet for all that, Iran cannot be bracketed with North Korea when it comes to the treatment of its citizens. There is a secret police system, there are random arrests and torture prevails. But, as its critics admit, Iran is a society in transition. Opposition politicians are not routinely beheaded, movement is permitted in and out of the country and the Iranian authorities care very deeply about how they are perceived in the outside world.
Iran is also an aspiring nuclear weapons power, but, unlike North Korea, it has yet to test a nuclear bomb. It says it has no intention of doing so, not least because it wishes to remain loyal to its international treaty commitments. Nor does Iran show any sign or desire of becoming a serial nuclear proliferator like North Korea, which has sent nuclear hardware to Syria and, according to reports, to Myanmar. Where will it stop? Can we expect North Korean supplied reactors, enrichment plants and missile assembly factories to spring up next, for example in Bangladesh, or Nepal, or even the Maldives?
Now consider how the world's only superpower and self-appointed policeman responds to each of North Korea and Iran. There were a few words of regret and some tut-tutting from Washington when North Korea carried out its nuclear tests. And what happened when two American journalists were arrested by the North Koreans for straying across the border with China. They were sentenced to several years of hard labour, but the U.S. sent no less a person than former president Bill Clinton to secure their release. Would Mr Clinton or any comparable personality ever fly to Iran in a similar situation? Not likely, because, although Iran is a comparably more tolerant and law abiding society, it is also seen as more vulnerable. Hence the leaked reports every few days that the U.S. military and its Israeli allies are poised to unleash a war of such ferocious magnitude on Iran that it will take generations to recover.
Why is the U.S. response to North Korea and Iran so grotesquely disproportionate? First of all because Pyongyang has the military edge over Washington's allies in the region, especially South Korea. In the event of North Korea being attacked, South Korea and probably Japan as well would be at the receiving end of North Korea's displeasure. North Korea also has the backing of China and the Chinese, with their massive U.S. dollar holdings, have the power to demolish the U.S. economy. The sad conclusion is that morality and standards of decency and fair play have nothing to do with international relations. What matters are considerations of power and strategy. Tehran could buy itself some protection by reminding Washington that, in the event of war, American troops across the border in Iraq will be vulnerable to Iranian counter-strikes. And if Iran was really clever, it could redouble its efforts to develop closer ties with China. An alliance of the two countries would represent a formidable barrier to U.S. plans for re-shaping the Middle East to its own satisfaction.
top |
|
