The real threat comes from terrorism, not rogue states
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The logic of George Bush's campaign against the axis of evil, never persuasive, is coming apart in his hands. After months of heavyweight war rhetoric directed at Iraq, the US State Department has casually claimed that North Korea has admitted it has a nuclear weapons programme. Given that the justification for using military force against Saddam Hussein is to prevent his developing weapons of mass destruction, and particularly nuclear weapons, the inconsistencies of US policy are exposed. Since at least January, the US has believed that North Korea, unlike Iraq, has enough plutonium for "at least one, possibly two, nuclear weapons".
Yet, where Iraq is threatened with invasion, the forceful deposition of Saddam and US rule, Sean McCormack, the White House spokesman, says of North Korea: "We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation."
If Saddam is so untrustworthy that the US believes he can only be disarmed by being deposed, why does the US believe Kim Jong Il will get rid of his nukes "in a verifiable manner" when he has gone back on North Korea's promise of non-proliferation given to South Korea, Japan and the US itself in 1994?
The truth is that US policy towards North Korea is sensible, while that towards Iraq is not. In the former case, the US is working with its allies in the region to put economic and political pressure on the North Korean government. It is using North Korea's alleged admission that it has broken the 1994 agreement as a pretext for withdrawing the offer of aid (which includes support for two nuclear reactors – although why a basket-case economy like North Korea needs a nuclear energy programme is baffling).
As the bombing of Bali reminded the world, the terrorist threat to the West comes from fluid networks of extremist organisations rather than from the rogue states that so dominate the mythology of US foreign policy. If a policy of carrot, stick and coalition can work to contain the threat from North Korea, why cannot the same logic be applied to Iraq? If it were, that might encourage Arab and Muslim nations to join in the much more difficult struggle against stateless terrorism.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments