It is my opinion that the United States’ reaction to North Korea’s nuclear weapons test is hypocritical and inappropriate. Firstly, the United States is one of the largest holders of nuclear weapons in the world at this time. Given the manner in which the United States manages its foreign affairs with very limited consideration of the “international community� and the UN’s opinion, as shown by George W. Bush’s track record, the USA could easily be as dangerous as North Korea is perceived to be.

If anything, the United States has taken on the self-assigned role of global policeman and caretaker, assuming the responsibility to attack sovereign states at its own discretion or make strong threats against countries whose domestic and foreign policies it does not like. The seemingly auspicious imperative of protecting “national interest� has become the byword of US foreign policy. Recall that, before suspicions of North Korean weapons testing were even raised, in January 2005 Condoleezza Rice had already declared North Korea an outpost of tyranny on the basis that “ America stands with oppressed people on every continent�. At this time, no mention was made of nuclear weapons or tangible threats to international “peace and stability�.

Secondly, the United States has used its influence and military power, much against the wishes of the so-called “international community�, to attack a sovereign state - Iraq. While I do not advocate for the previous Saddam Hussein administration, the United States’ blatant disregard of the United Nations when its own interests conflict with that of the rest of the world must be noted.

To illustrate this point more, the US itself has largely ignored the UN disarmament campaign. The United States openly refused to submit its war criminals to the International Court of Justice while it does not hesitate to advocate for persecution of dictators who have committed war crimes in the same Court. Charles Taylor’s indictment in The Hague, passed by a unanimous vote of the Security Council, is a case in point. Lastly, as already mentioned, the US resolutely ignored UN condemnation surrounding its unilateral invasion of Iraq. All of these examples reveal duplicity on the part of America.

I find it absurd that a country that holds no respect for both the United Nations Peace Charter or for the “international community� now thinks it acceptable to champion the causes of the aforementioned and use these organs to invoke retreat from nuclear weapons development in North Korea.

Over the past couple of years, I have found myself repeatedly puzzled by a question that these recent events evoke: What does “peace and stability� really mean? Since North Korea’s action has been declared a threat to global “peace and stability�, an objective definition to set the terms of understanding this accusation and help legitimate any disciplinary action by the “international community�. Whose peace and whose stability? I raise these questions, not to condone North Korea’s actions necessarily, but hopefully to jolt the reader into realizing how much the rhetoric and, as it would seem, the formulation of foreign policy is informed on one hand by “conventional wisdom� that few really understand and, on the other, driven by the self-interest of the world’s most powerful nation.

Does “peace and stability� include military campaigns to oust governments that are “opposed to democracy�? For example, since Zimbabwe was labelled an “outpost of tyranny� whose leader was seen as an impediment to the advancement of “equality and democracy�, would launching a military attack on the Zimbabwean government constitute an action defending “peace and stability�? Whose peace or stability would be under threat in such a case?

Or does “peace and stability� mean that there should never be any threat to the interests of the major global economic and political powerhouses? I am certain that a military threat to areas in Africa would not be seen as a threat to global “peace and stability�. There is a danger in accepting sweeping, abstract statements and employing them as tangible reasons to support or oppose an action, opinion or interest group.

I agree that the world has its fair share of nuclear weaponry and there is no need for more, but the harsh condemnation that befalls those who develop nuclear intelligence or engage in actions that threaten the “international community� should be applied equally to all nations, with the same expectations of compliance as well as equal consequences for non-compliance.