However, this obsession continues, judging by the widespread coverage given to the death of yet another eccentric strongman, Kim Jong-il whether in the print or electronic media. In the case of the North Korean leader, it was not only his bizarre habits which attracted perverse interest, but also his possession of nuclear weapons on which he relied increasingly to shore up his moribund regime. Kim Jong-il exploited American fears to the hilt. He let it be known that if pushed to the wall by Washington, he would unleash whatever he had by way of weaponry on the thousands of American servicemen — across the border in South Korea, the thousands more based in Japan and he might even take a potshot at Los Angeles — with his nuclear tipped, long-range missiles. Lest Washington have any doubts, Kim used to periodically fire off a clutch of these missiles to remind Washington that he meant business. While brandishing his growing nuclear capability at the US, he also held South Korea hostage by threatening to devastate Seoul, its mega capital, with his Scud missiles.
When it comes to dealing with enemies with nuclear weapons that can reach their shores, Washington has shown just how solicitous and patient it can be. As for the US Congress, its behaviour, too, has been impeccable. Not a squeak is heard out of them, or at least, none loud enough that would complicate relations with North Korea or give the Kims offence to break off the talks.
In contrast, America’s enemies which do not possess nuclear weapons can expect to be subjected to endless hectoring and receive no mercy. They are bombed, droned and invaded whenever it takes America’s fancy. Of course, the ostensible reasons can vary. The absurd ‘domino’ theory sufficed for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ for half a dozen Latin American countries; lies and the spurious and illegal claim of pre-emption accounted for Iraq and the most recent one of ‘saving the population from its leaders and preventing a humanitarian disaster’, was the ploy for Libya. At last count America had, at one time or another, bombed 50 countries since World War II and invaded a dozen on some pretext or another.
Viewed thus, it’s astonishing that revolutionary Iran waited for as long as it did to develop nuclear weapons, considering that Israel has for more than a decade regarded the Iranian mullahs as posing an existential threat to Israel. Actually, it was the Shah who put Iran on the path of developing nuclear weapons capability. He acquired an enrichment plant located in Tehran from, believe it or not, the US, actually General Electric to be precise, in 1968. Ironically, it was Khomeini who scrapped the plant dubbing nuclear weapons as ‘evil’.
Of course, since then Tehran has had second thoughts and who can blame them, considering the fate of Saddam and Qaddafi while, in contrast, Kim Jong-il with a firm grip on power is going to get a hero’s farewell.
US-Pakistan relations, one suspects, has a lot to do with our inability to present even a notional nuclear threat to America as we do not have the means of taking a potshot at the American mainland. India on the other hand, is developing such a capability. That should be food for thought. It may also be the reason why The New York Times is so obsessed with Pakistan’s leaders.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 23rd, 2011.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
Phew! What a relief! I had heart in my throat for few brief moments when I was the heading. I had "here we go again" dreadful feeling and thought it was about our own. Praise to be to the Almighty; it was about someone thousands of miles away!
In spite of being a nuclear power, Pakistan was bombed (droned ) by US and they were not scared to attack and kill OBL in Pakistan's soil. Your theory of nuclear bombs acting as deterrents to US in attacking any country falls apart on this count alone. US has different policies and plans to deal with different rogue States, depending upon what US perceives as its priority at any given point of time.
Interesting and thought provoking.
Forget Financial times, forget Washington post because they are irresolute for us as far as sovereignty of our country is concerned. US-Pakistan relations are significant but on which terms? its important. in fact this is the most critical situation in Pakistan externally and internally. The best possible solution would be strong diplomacy between US-Pakistan. The more stronger we put our case in UNO and other international plate forms the more we get support. We can only hope for bright future of our country and civil military imbalance should have to be resolve peacefully.
As always a great article by Mr Zafar Hilaly.. But let's take this step by step. Before developing intercontinental missiles capable of hitting the USA let's first develop a reliable means of hitting Israel. Then just watch how The New York Times learns to love Pakistan and how miraculously US-Pakistan relations improve.
Well in that case you'd better develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland. We'd of course intercept them but you can give it a shot.
For that you need diplomats who are not blinded enough by their weaknesses to miss their strengths.
But what explains a wide spectrum of countries like Australia, Canada, Mexico, S.Korea, entire S-E Asia, etc which donot have N-weapons, but has good relations with US?
The level of US circumspection in dealings with Korea has entirely to do with the degree to which China has made clear that it considers North Korea to be of strategic importance. It is China's arsenal, not North Korea's, that the US rightly fears. The fact that your column fails to mention China renders your arguments useless. Do you really think your "all-weather" friend considers Pakistan, or Iran, to be of equal strategic importance?