International Mexican Standoff…With Nukes

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

My favorite movie is Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs.” In my humble opinion it’s a perfect, snazzy, hip film. The dialogue is golden, the premise is amazing, the acting is beyond incredible and the soundtrack is some good stuff. To this day I cannot hear “Coconut” or “Stuck in the Middle With You” without thinking of that movie. One of the best parts of this flick is the final scene in which Joe, Mr. White, and Nice Guy Eddie are all pointing guns at each other in the infamous Mexican standoff. It’s not the first time in the movie where the characters are having conversations with guns in each other’s faces. As a matter of fact, having a gun in ones face is normal for most movies made by Mr. Tarantino.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China you ask? Well, the whole idea behind the Mexican standoff is that while the potential for disaster certainly exists, if all the participants are brandishing weapons then one would hope that cooler heads will prevail and each participant will put away their weapon and deliberate. That of course never happens in “Reservoir Dogs” as all the major players kill each other but in the case of nuclear-armed nation states, it does make a certain degree of sense.

For example, Pakistan and India are both nuclear rivals in the Central Asian region. They have been fighting over Kashmir since both were carved away from the British Empire. One is a country of mostly Muslims and the other is a country of mostly Hindus and neither religious body get along. While both countries have had a series of wars against one another, I believe what has stopped all out genocide from occurring is that both possess nuclear missiles. Sure it looks terrible but in the end it’s just two entities with guns in each other faces and nobody willing to make a move. With all that in mind, remember that in recent days both India and Pakistan have made strides toward peace.

Obviously the most famous example is that of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War/arms race reduced both countries to having to fight proxy wars and develop client states because they could not fight each other directly. Nuclear proliferation and the arms race were a terrible and costly ordeal but in the end it actually did more to prevent a “hot” war with the Soviet Union than not having a nuclear stockpile.

Now many people reading this will probably think I’m daft and be much more likely to side with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who today said, “Ultimately, the only way to guarantee that they [nuclear weapons] will never be used is for our world to be free of such weapons.” Mr. Annan spoke these words during a hearing on the UN nonproliferation treaty held today at the UN building in New York City.

“The U.N. chief urged nonweapons states like Iran to renounce potential bomb technology, in return for international guarantees of nuclear fuel. But he also challenged Washington and Moscow to slash their nuclear arsenals irreversibly to just hundreds of warheads.” (AP)

It would certainly make sense that a world free of nuclear weapons is one we should all strive for but let’s not be stupid about it. Transparency is key to any disarmament treaty and right now certain nations are having a bit of difficulty with this particular demand. IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei has told reporters recently that Iran, for example, should increase its “transparency” by providing the agency with all relevant information. The IAEA also reports that Tehran conducted a variety of clandestine nuclear activities in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement.

According to the Arms Control Association, “Transparency remains a serious problem as the world still lacks any precise figures on the size of the world’s nuclear arsenals and relevant fissile material stocks. The lack of robust institutional infrastructures and domestic laws to implement disarmament missions is another warning sign, along with the scant evidence that disarmament is receiving the funding it needs to dispose of nuclear weapons irreversibly and verifiably.”

We have to be both logical and pragmatic about this situation. I am not saying that either any country in the world or we should have nuclear weapons. On the contrary, I’m very positive on the idea of nonproliferation and disarmament. However, the fact remains that a weak United States will invite terror such as this country has never known before and thus we cannot simply disarm in a vacuum. We cannot forget that there are forces, both legitimate and criminal, that mean to do us a great deal of harm. What’s keeping them somewhat at bay is the 200 plus nuclear missiles at the ready that can land anywhere in the world. Simply put, if the world wants total nuclear disarmament then they collectively have to go first.

I’m sure there are those reading this column from the left side of the aisle that would make the argument that we are the only country that has actually used atomic weapons in the past and thus must pay the price, lead by example and disarm first. Balderdash! That argument lacks all kinds of historical context and is coming from an anti-American chauvinist point of view. Nobody charged with the protection of their own country would agree to give any other country such a distinct tactical advantage. Let’s face reality here, we’re not going to just wave a white flag and declare surrender across the world.

This is a serious issue and it demands a methodical plan of execution. But any route toward total global disarmament and nonproliferation must first begin with total transparency across the globe. Right now that is not happening. To this day we do not know the extent of either Iran’s or North Korea’s nuclear potential. This very question was the heart of the Iraq conflict and look how that turned out. Until these matters can be sorted out, we will just have to live with the Mexican standoff and pray it doesn’t turn out like the end of Reservoir Dogs.