The U.S. governments have always, as a matter of policy tradition, invoked the ‘nuclear question’ only selectively. Whereas the U.S. frequently tries to establish its global hegemonic position by periodically organizing such summits, these summits, ironically speaking, also turn out to be a startling display of fundamental contradictions in the U.S. foreign policy. During his speech at the recently held summit, Obama unambiguously warned of the real threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of ‘terrorists.’ As a matter of policy, he urged the world to strengthen control and security of weapons and radioactive material. Yet, his approach to dealing with terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, such as Afghanistan, contradict each other to the extent that the question of nuclear security is rendered not only meaningless but also appears to be a ridiculous way of projecting the so-called ‘American exceptionalism’ in the world.
The U.S. approach is murky in its typical fashion. Former DoD official and one time member of the U.S. National Security Council, Christina Lin, calls it a schizophrenic approach. In his words, “the US fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan while arming al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria, arming Shiíte militia in Iraq while arming Sunni militia against them in Syria. To boot, the US is arming Syrian Kurds fighting ISIS while selling new weapons to Turkey to bomb the Iraqi Kurds fighting ISIS.”
The U.S. is supporting an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria because this group is aiming to topple Assad. The U.S. is fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan because the Taliban have been opposing the U.S. objective to have long term military presence on their land to establish strategic superiority vis-à-vis Russia in the Russian ‘under bally’ and to have influence over the flow of energy resources from the Central Asian region to the rest of the world. The same holds true of the U.S. policy regarding Iraq. The U.S.’ U-turn over the question of Iran’s possible nuclearization is yet another manifestation of America’s dual nuclear policy—a policy that continues to shift according to the demands of political and strategic expediencies.
The same duality is visible enough with regard to North Korea’s nuclearization. By opposing Korea’s nuclearization, and at the same time, by opposing the falling of nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists, the U.S. not only projects Korea and terrorist as identical forces, but also reinforces the unrealistic U.S. dream to force the entire world into following its nuclear approach.
Washington’s response to each new North Korean nuclear development is to impose harsher sanctions and increase the tension. Washington seems oblivious to China’s dilemma, which is not wishing to see a nuclear Korean peninsula but also not wanting a collapse of the North Korean regime. Similar sort of contradiction exists with regard to the U.S.’ insistence on China joining the US-led coalition against IS and Assad in Syria. The contradiction is that there are reportedly a thousand Uighurs from China fighting in al-Qaeda group in Syria. This being the case, it is far from clear why the U.S. should insist on including China in a coalition that supports anti-Chinese elements? This is, as the contradiction indicates, yet another U.S. game of words to build its image as a ‘world leader.’
While the U.S. has been, as always, making desperate attempts at re-storing the U.S. image as a ‘world leader’ due to the pressure coming from domestic politics, and especially the Republican Party, the conspicuous absence of Russia’s Vladimir Putin from the summit has rendered this attempt rather meaningless. It shows that the successive U.S. governments have not yet realized that mixing the spirit of collaboration with a dollop of confrontation is not the best way of building international trust. Although Obama spokesperson professed being puzzled by Putin’s absence, it is obvious that no one would feel welcomed while regarded as an enemy. With 97% of the world’s nuclear stockpile being under military control, Putin’s absence takes away any meaningful substance from the summit.
The nuclear summit, or the politics thereof, is therefore only a reinforcement of the U.S.’ dual approach to most of the problems as well challenges the world is facing. This hold true not only with regard to nuclearization, but is also evident in the highly selective projection of terrorists as either ‘terrorists’ or ‘moderate fighters.’ We have seen ‘fighters’ turning into ‘terrorists’ in Syria and vice versa. And we have also seen ‘terrorists’ turning into ‘insurgents’ in Afghanistan. The 180 degree changes indicate the reality of the U.S. foreign policy: it is self-contradictory and at the same time reflects the American obsession with reviving the unilateral world system. Absence of Putin is yet another U.S. failure in this direction.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Source