Posts Tagged ‘north korea’

President Obama has just helped bring a new resolution to bear on the use of nuclear weapons. This morning, members of the U.N. Security Council unanimously signed the new resolution that focuses on stopping the spread of atomic bombs. It also urges countries to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has been on the books since the 70’s. But what does this mean?

The most important issues that this resolution aims to solve are not clearly spelled out. India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals but have not signed any treaty regarding their use. Isreal remains aloof. North Korea and Iran are not mentioned either, although clearly, these two countries in particular are the biggest cause for concern around the globe. North Korea tested the global community’s nerves when it exploded two nuclear warheads, one in 2006, and one in May of this year. Iran and North Korea need to be sent a clear message. So let’s sign a resolution that asks all countries to please play nicely with each other, but let’s not stoop so low as to actually call the misbehaving ones out by name.

If I may use a phrase from another hot-button issue: “If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.” Now, regardless of my stance on firearms and the 2nd Amendment, I think this resolution points to just such a scenario. If all the “responsible” nuclear countries like the U.S., France, etc lay down their arms, then only those countries that don’t abide by the treaties will still have their nuclear arsenals. So why don’t they just play nice and lay theirs down as well?

Look at the situation from their perspective. Iran sees all these other bigger powerful countries with weapons of massive destructive power. Maybe they feel threatened. Maybe they feel like they should be allowed to have just as much power as everyone else. Why doesn’t the rest of the world just let them be equal?

Why? I’ll tell you why. Because they spout off about wiping another country off the face of the Earth is why. A country that the U.S. happens to be good friends with. Plus they don’t sign the treaties everyone else signs. If they want to be part of the “Nuclear Elite”, they have to agree to play by the rules set up by the countries that are already Elite. That’s how it works. So unless this new resolution is changed to include the countries it is trying to affect, it remains nothing more than another idle, ambiguous threat. One that I am sure Iran and North Korea will wave aside, just as easily as all the previous attempts to get them to play nice.

Is there a solution to this issue? What are your thoughts?

Advertisements

I watched the last half of the Democratic National Convention last night. I saw the part where truck driver Republicans said they would vote Obama and Barack’s speach. Well…what now. We get to see the Republican Convention and endure days of them bashing all of Obama’s ideas. But I guess my question is: besides a few points, what reasonable person could say that what he said is bad. I know there are people out there who legitimately believe that everything Obama says is wrong just because it’s coming from him and not a republican. Someone in my Bible Study said that Obama stands for the opposite of everything he (the guy) believes in. Really? Lower taxes for the middle class. Holding big business accountable and taxing them. Trying to talk to countries before invading them. Yeah, that stuff is crap.

That last one really gets me. I know our foreign policy has seen better days but people freaked out when Obama said he would be willing to talk withanyone if there was a chance for peace.  “I want to have direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria because I don’t believe we can stabilize the region unless not just our friends but also our enemies are involved in these discussions.” Why is that a bad thing. Are things going to get better by ignoring the very people we should be trying to bring to the table. I remember watching Diane Sawyer inside North Korea meeting with some of their top military leaders and them saying, “I really wish Bush would stop calling us evil.” Yes, they may have done some bad things but calling them names from across an ocean is not going to make them want to stop. In fact it may spur them on to even more terrible action. I was once a student ambassador for the US and visited two countries. Understanding increases when you just speak with people. If I settled every argument like Bush, I would preemptively punch people in the throat before I confirmed that they had a  WMD in their pocket.

I also think we need to mind our own business. Yes, I know human atrocities abound throughout the world but there are still many happening in our own country that we have not dealt with because we are spending so much time and energy overseas. So Russia invades Georgia. That sucks but what does it have to do with America? Or how about this: Saddam invades Kuwait. What does that have to do with us? Oh yeah, I forgot. OIL. Kinda like how Saudi Arabia has a horrible human rights record but because we have a good business relationship with the royal family we overlook it. And China too. Well, we get so much of our stuff from China I guess it’s OK if they are terrible to their citizens. I guess it seems like I am arguing against myself. China’s human rights violations are not our problem. Why are we the worlds’ policeman?  I am getting off on a tangent here I know. Oh well. Maybe later I will publish my paper on foreign aid and how we should stop that too. Private organizations like World Vision do a much better job than the US Government. Anyway, I suppose I will end here before I go any farther. As always, I welcome your comments and arguments as long as they make sense and aren’t just insults.