DEFENCE SERVICES COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE MIRPUR, DHAKA

Dissertation for Master of Science in Military Studies Session 2008-2009

DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN APPROACHING NUCLEAR ISSUES OF NORTH KOREA AND IRAN

BY

Major Abdul Latif Bin Mohamed RMAF DSCSC Course 2008-2009 Directing Staff Guide Wing Commander M Liaquat Habib, psc, GD (P)

A Dissertation submitted to the Defence Services Command and Staff College in partial fulfillment of the curriculum of Master of Science in Military Studies under the Bangladesh University of Professionals, Bangladesh

ABSTRACT
Nuclear issues of North Korea and Iran frequently attracting news coverage. However, it is clearly seen that the world powers, especially the United States handled the crises with dual psyche. In deciphering the reasoning behind this attitude, it was found out that this issue is not about nuclear proliferation per say. It is being manipulated by United States to satisfy their national interest and at the same time protecting his alliance. The implication of this attitude towards international politics are numerous. At the least it worsen the anarcishm of international relation. At the other scale it might encourage non-nuclear state towards proliferation as a means of deterrence. Nonnuclear weapon states might also interpret this situation as the blatant monopoly of world power towards nuclear technology that might constitute the energy solution of the future. Additionally, Islamic countries might saw this signal as the confrontation with the Western world due to the deep entrenched Islamopohabia. Consequently, it is suggested that the Islamic world should strengthened their own alliance through the OIC and the peace-loving countries of the world should pressure the world powers to opt for dialogue in settling the issue. Finally the NPT proponents should give more emphasis on eliminating the existing nuclear weapon inventory rather than shouting on the presumed nuclear proliferation. Completion of this paper had been achieved after conducting the research through various books, journals and internet sites.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Serial Content . Page Title page ………………………………................………………………..…….……….i Abstract ..……………………………...………………………………….….…….……. ii Table of Contents ……………………...……………………………………..………... .iii INTRODUCTION……………………....……………………….…………….…….……1 AIM ………………………………………....……………………………….……….......3 BACKGROUND OF THE CRISIS..…………………....…………………….…….…... 3 North Korean Pursuit for Nuclear Technology...................…………….…….…......3 Iranian Pursuit for Nuclear Technology...........……....………………….…….….....5 WORLD POWER RESPONSES........................................................................................6 General...…………………………………………………………………….....….....6 Accommodation versus Confrontational Stance towards North Korea............….….7 Confrontational versus Accommodation Stance towards Iran............…….....….......8 BASIS FOR DUALITY IN THE APPROACH.......……………………….....…….…...9 General............................................................ ………………………....….….….....9 Israeli Factor............................................ …………………………….....….……. ..9 Sphere of influence...................................................................................................10 National Interest (The Economy Factor)..................................................................10 Prejudice (Islamophobia)..........................................................................................12 Possession of Nuclear Weapon.................................................................................12 IMPLICATIONS TOWARDS INTER-STATE RELATION..........................................12 General......................................................................................................................12 Increase Anarchism in International Politics............................................................13 Trouble Image of UN.............................................................................................. .14 Reduce Viability of NPT..........................................................................................15 Monopoly of Nuclear Technology...........................................................................15 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………......……….15 RECOMMENDATION …………………………………………………….......………17 Endnotes ……………………………………………………………………......……... 18 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………......……. 21

iii

DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN APPROACHING NUCLEAR ISSUES OF NORTH KOREA AND IRAN INTRODUCTION
1. On October 9, 2006 the world attention was focused on a statement delivered by the North

Korean government that it had successfully conducted an underground nuclear test. The blast of this test caused a seismic wave registering 4.2 on the Richter scale. Even though North Korea hailed this event as successful story and “a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful nation”,i it added another indelible mark on the failure of Nuclear NonProliferation (NPT) treaty. When the treaty was designed and opened for signature on July 1, 1968 it was intended to bring an end to the spread of nuclear weapon while emphasizing a gradual reduction of nuclear weapon arsenal from the states that had already acquired them. Since then, four additional states, i.e., Israel,ii India, Pakistan and South Africaiii had acquired the notorious weapon either covertly or overtly. North Korea ranked the fifth. In addition to that, the existing nuclear weapon states, among them the United States, which possesses nearly 10,000 nuclear bombs in its arsenal, continue to modernize its nuclear weapon potential. Hence the treaty was frown upon by some states as an instrument that served to maintain the existing unjust world order. 2. There is a basis for their argument on “unjust world order”. Well, the proponents of

realism paradigm postulates that states will use its power to pursue it own interest. The more power that a state actor has, the more leverage it can assert on any issue. Within the international arena, it was clearly observed that United States (US) continues to maintain close relation with Israel which had covertly produced around 200 nuclear bombs. Even to this day, US has never expressed any concern on that matter. Furthermore, when it sees its interest in having a close relation with India or Pakistan who had defied the world opinion on nuclear proliferation, it will continue to do so. On the other hand US is determined to intimidate states that obviously do not have nuclear weapons, but only nuclear ambitions, such as Iraq and Iran.iv With the pretext of trying to eliminate “Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) that Iraq possess” US itself had caused mass destruction in Iraq resulting in death to more than a million Iraqisv, inflicted thousands with incurable diseases through the usage of depleted uranium bombs and bullets and led the country into shambles.vi Now the Iran nuclear issue is subjected with “all options on the table” by US policy maker as a mean to threaten Iran even though Iran had been pursuing her ambition on nuclear technology within 1

the premise of the NPT. This is in contradiction with North Korea who withdrawn from NPT treaty in order to develop the nuclear weapon. North Korea is not threatened with the “all options on the table”. 3. Iran consistently insists that it has the right within article IV of the NPT “to develop

research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report of February 2006 reaffirmed the peaceful intention of Iran when it states that it “has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” To put a little justice in the world order, Iran, together with Malaysia and a number of countries had been calling for transparency and nondiscrimination in export controls of nuclear technology transfers. However, through political power and media manipulation, US successfully brought the Iran nuclear issue into United Nation Security Council jurisdiction. This led to severe economic sanctions against Iran which are part of the “options on the table.” Politically it is understood that the severest “option on the table” is the threat of war against Iran. At this node, there is an obvious distinction between the approaches taken by US against Iran compared to the blatant North Korean proliferation issue. When tackling the North Korea nuclear issue, at least one option is left on the floor. To a certain extent, North Korea has been able to play what political scientist referred to as “Tit for Tat” strategy in manipulating the issue for its economic advantage.vii Even though this is part of “unjust world order” paradigm, it is not the intention of this paper to debate on that line, rather it tries to explore the reasoning that have influenced US and the other world powers to handle the North Korea and Iran crisis with a dual psyche. Certainly it is also interesting to examine the implication of the double standard approach towards future issues in the inter-states relation. In deciphering the topic, this paper will be divided into three parts. First part is concerned with historical perspectives and the motives that have driven North Korea and Iran to get nuclear technology. In the second part, the approaches of world powers, especially US towards both issues will be analyzed. Finally this will lead to several deductions on why different approach is taken by world power in handling the cases and its implication on inter-states relation.

2

AIM
4. The aim of this paper is to examine the causes that have influenced the world powers to

handle nuclear issues of North Korea and Iran with a dual psyche and its implications.

BACKGROUND OF THE CRISIS
5. The crisis on nuclear issue revolves around one single word – mistrust. Germany, Japan,

Belgium, have nuclear facility. No nuclear issue arises because they have the trust of the big powers. North Korea and Iran do not. Absence of the trust, the question lingers on the notion whether Iran has an intention to develop nuclear weapon. It is also has a question mark on why North Korea wants nuclear weapon to be in its inventory? Christopher W. Hughes suggested evaluating a set of drivers to determine the nuclear intentions of a particular state. These drivers are “National Security”, “Prestige, Identity and Norms”, “Domestic Economic Pressure” and “Technological Capacity”.viii Evaluating these set of drivers, a conclusion can be derived on the possibility that the states will acquire nuclear weapon or a clearer view on why the states are embarking on the course of producing nuclear weapon. North Korean Pursuit for Nuclear Technology 6. General. Geologically, North Korea was destined to be a country where the possibility of

nuclear proliferation was quite an attractive move for the policy makers. Historically, its role as a center for nuclear research had been established during World War II when the Japanese attempted to develop an atomic bomb using the large natural reserves of uranium in North Korea. ix It was estimated that the country possessed some 26 million tons of uranium minerals within its boundary. This led the Soviet Union to dig out the uranium when the country fell into her umbrella after the division of Korean peninsula along the 38th parallel. It was reported that the Soviets had shipped out nearly 9000 tons of uranium out of the area between 1947 to 1950.x 7. National Security. It is understandable that North Korea’s policy maker will maximize

the advantage of having core mineral for production of nuclear weapon in its backyard. This was compounded by the fact that during the Korean War, US had threatened to use the atomic bomb against them to strike a blocking blow.xi The Korean War ended with a demilitarized zone (DMZ) established at the 38th parallel. The heavily guarded DMZ and

3

the armistice characterized the division between the North and the South together with the commitment of US to prevent any North Korean aggression. On the other hand, being labeled as ‘axis of evil’ by US there is a deep sense of insecurity and fear on the part of North Korea towards the possibility of attack by US.xii North Korea leader also feel threatened by US security policy of ‘regime change’.xiii Consequently North Korea’s policy makers might believe that by having nuclear weapon would dissuade invasion by US since this will place US regional allies in extreme danger. 8. Prestige Identity and Norms. North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons

might also be driven by considerations of national prestige,xiv identity, and norms, especially as a means to assert to the world that they are not a pariah state but a country that has to be reckoned with. Their national ideology of self-sufficiency “jusche” dictates that they should be able to achieve whatever they want on their own way.xv This is evident by the statement of North Korean envoy to the UN that “it would be better for the Security Council to offer its congratulations rather than pass “useless” resolutions”xvi after their successful conduct of nuclear test. 9. Domestic Economic Pressure. North Korea had been dependent upon economic

assistance and capital investment from Soviet Union and China throughout the Cold War. The collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of Cold War had adversely affected their economy. The situation is worsening by famine in 1995 where around one to two million people perished from hunger during that period.xvii Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that only 20.7 percent of North Korea is arable land and within this portion about eight percent is in permanent corps. Against this backdrop, North Korea is seen as in dire need for economic assistance to ensure its survival. This is evident by the fact that it has been using its nuclear capabilities as a bargaining chip to secure economic incentives through-out the six-party talk.xviii 10. Technological Capacity. There is little doubt that North Korea has the technological capacity to develop nuclear weapon. They already tested it. North Korea has invested in human capital towards acquiring this technology since 1950s. They trained their nuclear scientists and engineers in the United Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Soviet Union. Later on Soviet scientist instructed them on plutonium processing technique. This culminated in the construction of the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Complex situated north of Pyongyang in 1962.xix

11.

Deductions. Evaluation of those drivers suggested that the most probable motive for

4

North Korea to develop and possess nuclear weapon is to provide a sense of security fromUS threat. It also generates other advantages by raising its national prestige and placing the country on a stronger platform to negotiate for its economic advantage. Iranian Pursuit for Nuclear Technology. 12. General. Historically, Iran is a country that has a record of being invaded and bullied.

Russia and Britain did the invasion. After independence, in 1953, US and Britain bullied them by organizing a coup that deposed the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstall the Shah of Iran.xx The reason is quite simple. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil exploration where British companies had a large stake in it. Upon assuming the power Shah terrorized his own citizen and political opponent through the use of Shah’s secret police called SAVAK. SAVAK was trained by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).xxi US also helped Shah to build nuclear research reactor in 1959 but the assistance was abandoned when Shah was disposed in 1979 revolution. US was somewhat humiliated by the aborted hostage-rescue operation conducted in response to US embassy crisis during the revolution. Post-revolution Iran jump started the nuclear works by securing cooperation with Argentina and North Korea in 1985.xxii In 2002, Iran restarted the construction of nuclear reactor at Bushehr (left by German technician in 1979) employing Russian technician.xxiii Two main technologies characterized Iranian nuclear program: plutonium production and uranium enrichment. Iran asserts that its plutonium production is focused on the need to produce radioactive isotopes for industrial, agricultural and medical purposes. The enrichment program is needed to generate electricity. 13. National Security. Geographically Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapon states. Israel

posed as a threat from the west, and her northern and eastern neighbours (China and Pakistan) are well-known nuclear capable states. Apart from that she faces a big nuclear weapon state all over the place (US nuclear submarines). Obviously national security is matter of concern for Iran considering that her long time enemies (US and Israel) had shown unrestrained urge to punish weaker enemy (US in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon) when they see the need to do so without considering international opinion. Having nuclear weapon will provide some assurance for Iran not to be threatened with nuclear attack by her enemies in the event of any hostility.

14.

Prestige, Identity and Norms.

Being an Islamic Republic, Iran will not associate

nuclear weapon with her prestige and identity since it is against Islamic belief to develop weapon that can effectively wipe out innocent human population.xxiv On the other

5

hand, having nuclear technology that can serve human kind is definitely a prestigious prospect for Islamic world like Iran.

15.

Domestic Economic Pressure.

Iranian policy makers understand that the vast oil field in

their backyard is a finite resource. It is naïve to think that having this capability they should not think of other means for energy production. The day will come when their pump will suck the last drop of oil. On the other hand, given the rise in domestic oil consumption, it is cleverer for them to select a cheaper method for energy generation while profiting from higher prices of the oil export.xxv Hence Iranian assertion that their nuclear endeavour is for peaceful purposes certainly has a solid foundation. 16. Technological Capacity. Iran has been sending her students to foreign universities to

study nuclear science. Since many Iranian nuclear scientists left the country after revolution, Iran might require the training of new generation of engineer and physicists over the next 20 to 30 years in order to be independent on the construction and operation of nuclear power plant.xxvi Hence the sanction against Iran also involves stopping Iranian from acquiring knowledge in this field.xxvii 17. Deductions. Iran might not want to develop nuclear weapon if it is not pressured to do

so. The country had said clearly that they need the nuclear technology for peaceful purpose especially in the field of energy, medical, industrial and agricultural applications. However, considering US and Israel’s continuous threat on her sovereignty, Iran might choose to have the capability to develop nuclear weapon as deterrence from US or Israel attack.

WORLD POWERS RESPONSES
General 16. M. Zuberi in his article “Nuclear Myths and Reality – Nuclear Safeguards: The

Servitudes of Civilian Nuclear Technology”, portrays a vivid picture of world power responses towards developing countries’ attempt to acquire nuclear power stations. It is starkly valid in the North Korea and Iran issues: “While only a few developing countries have civilian nuclear-power stations, the literature on nuclear proliferation – itself proliferating all the times – concentrates on these countries as the primary locus of “proliferation threats”. It is an extraordinary 6

obsession leading to paranoid fears and anxieties. Feverish imagination conjures up lurid pictures of irresponsible leaders having a finger on the nuclear trigger. Terrorist gangs, criminals and lunatics – only from developing world – have also been dragged into this discussion.”xxviii In order to rally the masses behind their campaign, the Western leaders and their cohorts sensationalize the issue by invoking security threats and many “possible scenarios”. However their responses towards North Korea and Iran affairs somewhat varies. In general, they are more accommodative towards the demand of North Korea while maintaining a confrontational stand towards Iran. Accommodation versus Confrontational Stance towards North Korea 17. US had been engaging in talks with the North Korea to end nuclear program since 1991

but by 1992, North Korea has achieved a capability to build 1 to 2 nuclear bombs. xxix Under Clinton administration US had considered to attack the nuclear sites in 1993 but later on abandoned the idea.xxx Instead US and North Korea reached an Agreed Framework in 1994 whereby North Korea would freeze nuclear production for the next eight years in exchange for Light Water Reactor (LWR) that will be provided by US.xxxi Between 1998 to 2000 North Korea tested her medium range missiles and US engaged in several diplomatic overtures to dissuade them. In 2001, the US administration under President Bush declared that negotiations would take different tone. North Korea was labeled as a member of the “Axis of Evil” and listed under the list of states that sponsored terrorist. US invaded Iraq in March 2003 and North Korea withdrawn from NPT in April the same year and restarted their reactor, unloaded another 15 kg of weapongrade plutonium two years later. In September 2005, the Six-Party talk offered North Korea incentive package in exchange for abandoning its nuclear program. However US placed sanctions on bank that provided financial support for North Korean Government Agencies causing collapse of the Six-Party talk agreement. Further sanction was imposed by UN Security Council after the nuclear test in October 2006. The Six-Party talk were revived again in October 2007 that culminated with a deal that required North Korea to dismantle Yongbyon nuclear facility and allow IAEA into their country in exchange for aid, trade and improve diplomatic relation.xxxii In June 2008, US agreed to lift key trade sanctions against North Korea and remove them from the terrorism blacklist when they handed over the accounting of their nuclear work to China. the promise and the aid that they received did not commensurate with the steps that they had 7
xxxiii

Three months later, North Korea decided to restart their nuclear reactor since US failed to honour

taken to dismantle their nuclear program. Overall, asides from the 1993 US intention, the engagement between the world powers and North Korea had been through talks, persuasion, promises and sanctions. Confrontational versus Accommodation Stance towards Iran 18. Iran nuclear program had been under latent US threat since the revolution that dissociated

them from US influence. The Bush administration had used 9-11tragedy to pursue a more hostile approach towards Iran. In December 2001, US Congress mandated a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that lists Iran as “among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies.”xxxiv The NPR permits the usage of nuclear weapon against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack.xxxv With this NPR US is expanding the potential uses of their nuclear weapons that allow the usage of their nuclear weapon against non-nuclear states.xxxvi Thus, US had been considering the use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon against Iranian main nuclear plant at Natanz when formulating their war plans in 2006.xxxvii On the other hand, since Iranian nuclear issue surfaced in 2002, Iran had been quite cooperative with IAEA and publicly insisting that the endeavour is for peaceful purpose. Iran gestures to have a high level talk with Bush administration were replied with responses ranging from lukewarm statement to blatant dismissal.xxxviii Letters from Iranian President to President Bush and to American people were not responded appropriately. Despite the three member of European Unionxxxix (and later on the P5 +1) effort to engage Iran diplomatically since 2003, US had been manoeuvring at the background to push the Iran nuclear issue into UN Security Council jurisdiction. Consequently sanctions were imposed on Iran amid the effort of the European Union (E.U.) to solve the problem in a more benign ways. Potential US presidential candidates echoed the same harsh tone towards Iran. Hillary Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran, Obama maintained the “all option on the table” and Mc Cain reverberated Bush’s thinking. On a harsher tone, Israel had been conducting exercise on air manoeuvres that simulated attack on Iran’s nuclear sites and at the same time seeking Washington’s approval on its intention. Altogether, reaction towards Iran’s nuclear pursuit is starkly coloured with threat of war and high tone speeches.

BASIS FOR DUALITY IN THE APPROACH
General 19. Duality in the approach towards North Korea and Iran nuclear issues originated from two powerful agenda i.e. economic power and alliance. Bill Clinton summarized the first agenda clearly in a simple word: “It’s the economy, stupid.”xl This is the real driving force 8

behind the US foreign policy. At a quick glance, Iran is economically more attractive to US than North Korea. The second agenda i.e. alliance, will modify the tone of US engagement towards the issue. North Korea has some informal alliance with China. Japan and South Korea being US alliance in the region would not like to see another US sponsored war erupted close to their borders. There are another two factors that also contributing in moderating the stance of the world power namely whether the state already has nuclear weapon or whether the “highlighted” state is an Islamic state. However, when looking towards the issue of Iran, there is another factor that dominated US politics and policy towards Middle East region i.e. the Jewish lobbyist that will always ensure Israel’s interested is well protected. In any count, Israel has been a long time unique alliance for the US.xli Israeli Factor 20. Jerome R. Corsi who wrote a book that defend profusely the neo-conservatives within the

US administration, pointed out that Israel’s supporters exist within the important segments of both Jewish and Christian communities throughout US and particularly from Ohio and Florida states. Iran nuclear issue is always at the forefront for those voters. In any US Presidential Election, the vote tallies from these supporters are likely to make critical difference in the outcome of the election.xlii Consequently, it is easy to derive a conclusion that, on most instances US president will speak and act in accordance with Israeli wishes.xliii On the other hand, Israel is afraid that if Iran or any Arab state is to acquire nuclear weapons, the world would demand that the establishment of nuclear free zone in the Middle East. Consequently, Israel has to relinquish its nuclear weapons and subsequently losing its dream for regional hegemony.xliv Looking at North Korea, the Israeli factor is irrelevant. Sphere of Influence 21. US being the world hegemon continue to spread out its influence around the world through

the “regime change” doctrine and “spreading democracy”. In reality, the motive is to ensure the subjected country is governed by pro-US administration. It can enter into a country by being involved in settling the conflicts such as in Kosovo and Balkan states or it create conflict to justify its intervention such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Zoltan Grossman, a geographer at Evergreen State College in Washington, stated clearly:

"After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon has left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a foothold. The new string of bases stretch

9

from Kosovo and adjacent Balkan states, to Iraq and other Persian Gulf states, into Afghanistan and other central Asian states ... The only two obstacles to a geographically contiguous US sphere of influence are Iran and Syria.” xlv

North Korea also prevents complete US influence over Korean peninsula which if combine together with Japan can engulf China and Russia. But economically North Korea is not tempting to US compared to Iran. This sphere of influence is very much related to US national interest. National Interest (The Economy Factor) 22. US national interest has very much to do with ensuring his economy remained vibrant. To

some extent they embarked into foreign wars of aggression to monopolize natural resources. On this note, one factor stands clear. North Korea did not have the oil field. Iran is sitting on the world third largest oil reserves. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger admits that the true motives behind the hostility against Iran is not about “nuclear proliferation, but as part of a larger agenda to seize Iranian oil supplies”.xlvi Even among the layman it was openly accepted that the socalled nuclear proliferation of Iraq and now Iran is just a smokescreen for US to invade the country and plunder their oil. According to the CIA's World Factbook, Iran has the world's third largest reserves of crude oil at 136.2 billion barrels with Iraq standing the next at 112.5 billion barrels.xlvii US, being the world biggest oil user have very little oil left which is 20 billion barrels. It is expected that this will last for only 12 years considering the current rate of extraction. Considering the US economy which is in the long-term decline, bringing Iraq (and Iran) under US influence will ensure the supply of cheap oil for US manufacturing industry in order to maintain its competitiveness in the world market and at the same time sustain US lifestyle.xlviii

23.

The other side of the coin in this economy factor is the US dollar issue. Prior to the end of

World War II, international economy was based on gold standardxlix which had its own intrinsic value.l The gold standard maintained fixed exchange rates that were seen as desirable because they reduced the risk of trading with other countries. Following the Bretton Woods agreement in 1945, US had successfully established the dollar as reserved currency of the world. Nations were convinced to accept the new standard of using US dollar since dollar was peg to gold at the price of $35 per ounce. During the 1960’s, the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam War. Most of those dollars were used to buy economic goods from foreign countries. With the depreciating value of dollar (due to its relentless supply) foreigners started to realize that

10

they are holding an increase amount of dollar without the prospect of buying them back at the same value.li Consequently they started to demand US payment for their dollars in gold. In response, US unilaterally closed the gold window making the dollar inconvertible to gold. From that point on, US design a new scheme to force the world to continue to accept the depreciating dollars as trade standard by pegging it to the oil. This is done by securing an arrangement with Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollar for its oil in exchange for US support of the House of Saud.lii The rest of the Arab oil countries follow suit, and the rest of the world is forced to hold the dollars as payment for oil. Since the demand for oil increase even with increasing oil price, it follows that the world demands for dollars definitely increase. Thereafter, even though foreigners could not exchange their dollars for gold, they could exchange it for oil. liii Consequently dollar dominance in the world was assured, and the foreigners were at the losing side with depreciating dollar value.

24.

The severity of this issue was illustrated in the year 2000 when Saddam Hussein started to

demand payment for Iraqi oil in Euros. Since political pressure fails to change Saddam’s decision, US decided to invade Iraq to salvage the situation. Post-invasion revealed to the world that US intention was not about destroying Iraq’s WMD (since it does not exist), or defending human rights (since US soldiers grossly violated human rights it is treatment towards Iraqi civilian and soldiersliv) or spreading democracy (since a US puppet regime was installed). It is much about seizing the Iraqi oil field and two months after the invasion, US quickly terminated the Iraqi Oil for Food Program, switched back the Iraqi Euro accounts to dollars, and US dollars was used back for oil trading”.lv Now the Iranian is threatening the dollar regime by introducing Iranian Oil bourselvi where petroleum, petrochemicals and gas can be traded using Euros, Iranian Rials and other major currencies except dollar.lvii This substantially explains the US hostility towards Iran in comparing to North Korea in the so-called nuclear issue. Another factor that cause different approach towards Iran compares to North Korea is the latent distrust of the West towards Islamic world. Prejudice (Islamophobia) 25. Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) defined Islamophobia as “an irrational or

very powerful fear or dislike of Islam”.lviii It is a religion-based resentment that also “incorporates racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping”.lix Holding a prejudiced view about Islam and Muslims, the proponents of Islamophobia (known as Islamophobes) are actively defaming Islam by accusing Muslims as supporters of extremism and terrorism. lx On this score, a term Islamic bomb was coined to denote nuclear weapon possessed by Islamic country.lxi Iran, 11

being one of Islamic country that practicing democracy based on theocracy is very much in the center of the attention of the Islamophobes. Leaders of Iran are termed as Mad Mullah and the exuniversity professor President Ahamdinejad as Mad Man. No evidence is given for these charges and strikingly these charges were not thrown upon “evil dictators who are US allies.”lxii Even the North Korean leaders were not labeled as such. Norman Podhoretz, a neoconservative ideologist charging that Ahmadinejad is trying to replace international system with “a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism”.lxiii Having this perspective in their mind, letting Iran access to nuclear technology becomes a taboo for them. If eventually Iran acquires the nuclear weapon, they will not have the liberty to bully her as has been done before. Perhaps North Korea provides a clear example. Possession of Nuclear Weapon 26. Analysts contend that if Iraq actually had the nuclear weapon, US would not dare to invade

Iraq.lxiv “Possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent.”lxv This also explains why US dismisses the option of going to war with North Korea in comparing to Iran. . The Iraqi tragedy and the US Nuclear Posture Review on Iran have revealed that non-nuclear states can always being bullied or blackmailed by the nuclear capable state. Brazilian Representative to the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee on NPT has summed up this aspect four decades ago when he said: “If a country renounces the procurement or production by its own national means of effective deterrents against nuclear attack or the threats thereof, it must be assured that renunciation – step taken because of higher considerations of the interests of mankind – will not entail irreparable danger to its own people. The public could never be made to understand why a government, in forswearing its defense capability, had not at the same time provided reasonable and lasting assurances that the nation would not be, directly or indirectly, the object of total destruction or of nuclear blackmail.”lxvi Unfortunately, his concern was not addressed adequately within the NPT framework. His fears had been manifested in the issue of Iraq and Iran. Double standards in dealing towards one states compared to the other, certainly have a grave impact on world politics and cause troublesome on inter-states relations.

12

IMPLICATIONS TOWARDS INTER-STATE RELATION
General 27. Addressing the OIC Ministerial Meeting in 2006, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs

Manouchehr Mottaki asserted that the tendency of world powers to apply double standard in dealing with Middle East regional issues “will inflict severe losses against reputation of the international treaties and organizations.”lxvii This is evident by the way that they are totally closing their eyes “towards Israeli crimes and military nuclear threat” while dealing harshly with Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.lxviii Within the international arena, applying double standard when dealing with one state compared to the other will only increase anarchism in the international politics. This is aggravated through the blatant use of UN as the Trojan horse by the world powers in legitimizing their actions towards weaker state. It certainly has a damaging impact on the image of UN within the world community. On the nuclear non-proliferation issue, the action of US towards Iraq and later on Iran in comparison to North Korea does not serve to strengthen the NPT treaty, rather it pave the way for its failure when states conclude that having nuclear weapon provide deterrence against US aggression. Practising discriminatory approach against NPT members in accessing peaceful nuclear technology, its material and equipment will only serve to establish nuclear apartheid. Increase Anarchism in International Politics 28. The international political system is seen as anarchic due to the lack of a comprehensive

governance system above the level of nation state. Within the domestic context, police and court will enforce the law. In contrast within the international system, courts are either non-existent or very weak since there is no police force to enforce the law. Consequently power and diplomacy play a major role in the international system. Anarchy in international politics weakens trust and cooperation. Trust is hurt due to the absence of enforcement mechanism. These will make states hesitant to interact with one another. The greater the mistrust and insecurity, the less a state is willing to depend on others. Some states resorted to become self sufficient, while others will choose their trading partners or allies carefully. Absence of trust and cooperation, security is not ensured. Under anarchy, states remain watchful for their economic and physical security. When the world power showing double standard in their interactions between states, they worsen the existing anarchic situation. The unfavourable states and other states that deem that they will be in unfavourable position later on, might decide to form or strengthen own alliance. This will

13

divide international politics either into First world against Third world or Western world against Islamic world. If the Muslim nation perceived the double standard as originated largely from the Islamophobia phenomenon, they face an acute dilemma i.e., either choosing to minimize their interaction with Western world and strengthened the OIC or continue with the status quo and being denied the nuclear technology which are the source of future energy. Electing the first option might spear demise to the UN foundation.

Troubled Image of UN 28. Perhaps, among the serious consequences of double standard is the plummeting respect for

the UN since the big powers are seen frequently using their muscles to influence UN in justifying their actions. US has found in Iraq and Afghanistan “that an illegal war can be converted quickly into a legal peacekeeping mission by an easy-to-get UN resolution.” lxix Consequently, from time to time UN does not speak on behalf of its 192 members and no longer seen as impartial. The tarnished image of UN’s neutrality is depicted by Lakhdar Brahimi, a senior UN diplomat when he said: “Wherever the panel (for UN Security Survey) went, they were told by the UN people – and this is not only in Arab and Muslim countries but in Geneva, Rome, Nairobi and Sri Lanka – that there is this phenomenon these last few years that the UN is not perceived by a lot of people as impartial and independent.”lxx 29. In the 2008 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit, leaders of NAM nations had been

criticizing unfair trade practices and “arbitrary” actions by world power that they complained are controlling the UN even though NAM nations are almost two thirds of UN. Consequently they suggested that NAM should be strengthened as an alternative for UN.lxxi 30. If the Islamic countries perceive that UN is only a Trojan horse for the world powers

especially the US in persecuting Islamic countries, they might reduce their dependency on UN for problem solving and instead forming their own alliance. In that case, they can strengthened the OIC by make it a platform that really serve the Islamic world community. Perhaps it can start by reintroducing the Islamic currency of Dinar and Dirham as a common currency among its member. Dinar and Dirham is a safer method in this problematic economy since it has its own intrinsic value, that is, from gold and silver.lxxii This will provide some protection for them from the manipulation of world powers and at the same time reducing US manipulation on world economy. With a stronger OIC, Islamic countries will have a better chance in accessing the nuclear energy freely without being manipulated. 14

Shifting of the focus of Islamic country from UN to OIC will have a great impact on international politics since UN will lost its credibility as a governing world body. As much as UN image is at stake, the NPT which is the UN product is also being questioned due to the double standard approach. Declining Viability of NPT 31. NPT was designed with a core bargain that offered to both nuclear and non-nuclear states.

By being signatory to NPT, non-nuclear member states agreed to forswear nuclear weapons and accept intrusive international verification if they choose to build nuclear power plant. On the other hand, nuclear-armed states agreed not to apply nuclear threats against non-nuclear states, provide the latter with access to peaceful nuclear energy technologies and eventually eliminating their own nuclear arsenals. In dealing towards Iran, US clearly violate the NPT by the issuance of their NPR that threatened nuclear threats against non-nuclear Iran. Throughout the world, the non-nuclear states also see the promise of NPT that is access to peaceful nuclear energy is not as rosy as it seems when the treaty was signed. Some of them contend that the world power practice a discriminatory approach against access of NPT members to peaceful nuclear technology in order to monopolize the field which is the source of future energy. Monopoly of Nuclear Technology 32. The nuclear issue of Iran and North Korea portrays to the non-nuclear states that the world

powers practice selective approach in giving the access of NPT members to material, equipment and peaceful nuclear technology. The world could also see that once the powerful states completely control nuclear energy resources and technology, they will deny the access to other states that are not subjected to their influence. Effectively this deepens the division between powerful states and the rest of international community. It might bring the demise of NPT and consequently leading this world into another conflict when the demand of nuclear energy becoming the top priority with the dwindling down of other sources of energy.

15

CONCLUSION
33. Perhaps it is clear that the dual psyche approach in the nuclear issue of North Korea and

Iran stemmed from mistrust, hatred and greed. It is also equally clear that the resistance of Iran implicated not only in defence of the rights of the Islamic world but also the rights of all people in the world. If Iran fails to defend its right for accessing peaceful nuclear technology, other country that are not in line with US influence will be denied the technology in the future. A country like Malaysia that started to envisage having nuclear energy within its soil should contemplate its fate if Iran fails.lxxiii US, being the contemporary world hegemon displaying a double standard approach in tackling this issue since it speaks and works not for the benefit of mankind as a whole but for the sake of Israel and its own economic interest. If it is clearly the issue of nuclear proliferation, then, it should set the example by rigorously reduce its nuclear armament and at the same time pressure Israel to abolish its nuclear bomb stockpile. Nevertheless, it continues with vertical proliferation, modernizing its nuclear weapon capability and remained silent on Israeli nuclear bomb. 34. US maintains a harsh stance towards Iran in comparison with North Korea since it awaits

an opportunity to execute a regime change in Iran in order to secure its sphere of influence in the Middle East region. US might envision that it will militarily attack Iran or being a proxy behind Israeli attack that will certainly lead to an establishment of a new government that will be in favour to US and Israeli agenda in its aftermath. Economically, Iran is important to US since it has a large oil reserve and its attempt to trade the oil in currency other than dollar has negative implication to US economy. Militarily, Israel being the extension of US power in the region is afraid that a nuclear capable Iran will pose a threat to its security and losing its regional hegemony. Iran, being an Islamic state added the hatred of US and its “coalition of the willing” that perceived the rising Islamic power as a threat to the western civilization. All these factors are absent when the world power embarked on tackling the nuclear issue with North Korea. Apart from that, North Korea has China on his side, which would not like to see a harsh US stance within the region. Japan and South Korea, being US alliance also are not keen to see another war erupted close to their borders.

35.

The duality in the approach towards nuclear proliferation issue implicated many

consequences in the world politics. At worst, some states might take the issue as a signal that having the possession of nuclear weapon will actually tame the world power reactions

16

towards them. On the other side of the scale, some states might regards their rights within NPT are not honoured, which eventually might lead to the failure of the NPT itself.

RECOMMENDATION
36. In dealing towards one another, either between individual or between states, the principle should be based on the command of Allah stated in the Al-Qur’an: “Help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.”lxxiv Henceforth the following recommendation might be considered as a mean to navigate away from the troublesome world politics: a. In a more united voice, the peace-loving countries of the world should insist the

world powers to solve the complicated problems within the inter-states relation through dialogue even though it demands patience and perseverance. Dialogue requires listening; not just talking which can leads to understanding. Understanding sets the basis for collaboration that can result in a more prosperous, just, and peaceful world. b. The OIC countries should realize that the deep entrenched Islamophobia of the Western world has reached the stage where the OIC countries' right for nuclear energy in the future will be at stake. OIC countries should revert to the Qur'anic solutions in all aspects of their dealings in order to strengthen the relationship among the Islamic world. Perhaps they can start a better cooperation by reverting to “Dinar and Dirham” as their common currency which has the potential as a medium to strengthen the economic power of the Islamic world. Henceforth the blatant approach of US and Britain towards Islamic world can duly be checked. c. The proponents of NPT should delve more of their efforts on pressurizing the

nuclear weapon states to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear stockpiles rather than spying and lambasting at the non-nuclear states that seek peaceful nuclear energy. Nuclear issue of North Korea and Iran serve as a reminder to the world community, the fragility of the NPT. It has been clearly demonstrated that the treaty 17

can easily being trampled upon by the nuclear weapon states in pursuing their national interest and securing their alliance. Hence, to remain viable, NPT proponents should call all parties for total nuclear disarmament without discriminating any nation states. .

Dhaka 22 Dec 08 Word Counts: 7086 Distribution The Commandant Defence Services Command and Staff College Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

ABDUL LATIF MOHAMED Major Student Officer

Endnotes
18

i

Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) October 9, 2006, Pyongyang. If we consider Israel as a state, but it lacks legitimacy. iii South Africa dismantled and destroyed their nuclear weapons in the last years of apartheid. iv Muqtedar Khan, “Washington’s Nuclear Policy: Moral Clarity or Double Standard?”, Foreign Policy In Focus, January 08, 2002. v As a direct or indirect consequences of the war as researched by Daniel Stanton, Tim LeDonne and Kat Pat Krespan. Available at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-usoccupation/ vi Paul Craig Roberts, “This Time the World is not Buying It”, Antiwar.com, August 16, 2008. vii Robert Axelrod, “The Evolution of Cooperation”, Basic Book, United States of America, 1984, pp 27-69 viii Christopher W. Hughes, “North Korea’s Nuclear Weapon: Implication for Nuclear Ambitions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan”, NBR Special Report, No. 13, May 2007, pp 13-21. ix Lee Banville, “Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: North Korea”, Online News Hour, October 16,2007 x Ibid. xi Ibid. xii Segufta Hossain, “North Korea’s Nuclear Test: Implications For East Asian Security”, Biiss, Vol 27 (4), 2006, p 396 xiii Ibid. xiv Prakash Nanda, “Nuclearisation of Divided Nations: Pakistan-India-Koreas”, Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2001, p 82. xv Frederica M. Bunge, “North Korea – A Country Study”, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1981, pp 175-179. xvi Segufta Hossain, “North Korea’s Nuclear Test: Implications For East Asian Security”, Biiss, Vol 27 (4), 2006, p 402 xvii The cycle of food shortages and hunger was repeated again in 2007. xviii This talk consist China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Russia and United States with the main objective to achieve the denuclearization of Korean Peninsula. xix Lee Banville, “Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: North Korea”, Online News Hour, October 16, 2007. xx The Economist “The Revolution Strikes Back – A Special Report on Iran”, July 21st 2007, p8 xxi David Henderson, “Myths and Truth about Iran”, The Wartime Economist, Antiwar.com, August 27, 2007. xxii “Iran Nuclear Timeline”, BBC News, August 1st,2006 xxiii Ibid. xxiv In Iran it is the religious leadership, not the president who makes the decisions and commands the armed forces. Chaired by the “supreme guide”, presently Ayatollah Khamenei, it exercises a lot of caution since all decisions are govern by religious verdict. Islam forbade committing any mischief on earth and nuclear weapon is high on the list of mischief that had been created by man. President of Iran always being bind by the supreme guide. For example when Ayatollah Khamenei forbade all Iranian official from denying Holocaust, President Ahmadinejad was quite frustrated and refused to repeat his remark on the issue when he visited New York in September 2006. The previous supreme guide i.e. Ayatollah Khomenei already prohibited Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon. xxv David Henderson, “A Lesson in Opportunity Cost”, The Wartime Economist, Antiwar.com, October 23, 2006. xxvi Christopher King, “What the US Congress knows about Iraq and Iran”, Redress Information and Analysis, January 5, 2008. xxvii “Iranian Students to Sue Dutch Government for Study Ban”, Irancove, September 3, 2008. xxviii M. Zuberi and K. Subrahmanyam, “Nuclear Myths and Reality – Nuclear Safeguards: The Servitudes of Civilian Nuclear Technology”, ABC Publishing House, New Delhi, 1981, p 15. xxix Rachel Weise, “North Korea Nuclear Timeline”, available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/north_korea_timeline.html assessed on Sept 11 xxx Ibid. xxxi Ibid. xxxii Ibid. xxxiii “Timeline: Steps Forward and Backward in North Korea Nuclear Drama” Reuters, June 26, 2008 at http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK28850620080626?sp=true assessed on Sept 19, 2008.
ii xxxiv xxxv

Ibid. Ibid. xxxvi Ibid. xxxvii Seymour M. Hersh, “The Iran Plans”, The New Yorker, April 17, 2008, available at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?currentPage=all assessed on Sept 20, 2008. xxxviii Gareth Porter, “Burnt Offering”, The American Prospect, July 6,2006

xxxix

Britain, France and Germany, by 2006, the negotiating party was known as P5+1 i.e. with addition of China, Russia and the +1 is the US. xl The famous phrase in Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential Campaign. xli Dore Gold, “Understanding the US- Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Walt-Mearsheimer Claim”, No. 556 18 Elul 5767, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Sept 2, 2007 xlii Jerome R.Corsi, “Atomic Iran Unfit For Command”, Cumberland House Publishing, Tennessee, 2005 p 90. xliii Ibid, p 105. The Invasion of Iraq starkly proves this case. In CBS’ 60 Minutes, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC) charged that Iraq was the wrong war with the wrong strategy at the wrong time. He blamed the small group of senior Jewish policy makers who controlled the Iraq war decision making process to serve their self interest. In his own words he said, “I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody-everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully known what their agenda was and what they are trying to do.” This clearly shows that by removing Israel from the equation and there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. xliv Matthias Chang, “Future Fast Forward: The Zionist Anglo-American Empire Meltdown”, Thinkers Library, Kuala Lumpur, 2005, p 356. xlv Andrew Buncombe, “US and UK forces Establish ‘Enduring Bases’ in Iraq”, The Independent, Washington, April 2, 2006. xlvi Paul Joseph Watson, “Kissinger Admits Iran Attack is about Oil”, Prison Planet, September 21, 2007. xlvii CIA, “The World Factbook: Rank Order – Oil – Proves Reserves”, October 23, 2008. xlviii Christopher King, “The USA, Russia and the spinoff from Iraq and Iran”, Redress information and Analysis, March 3, 2008. xlix “Bretton Wood System”, Wikipedia the Free Ensyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system assessed on Nov 1, 2008.
l

Imran N. Hosein, “The Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham: Islam and the Future Money”, Al-Tasneem, Kuala Lumpur, 2007, p 16. li Krassimir Petrov, “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse”, Energy Bulletin, Jan 17, 2006. lii Ibid. liii Ibid. liv US treatment toward Guatanomo Bay prisoners is the final blow that convince the world the hypocrisy of US when talking about human right issues. lv Krassimir Petrov, “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse”, Energy Bulletin, Jan 17, 2006. lvi Press TV, “Oil Bourse Opens in Iran’s Kish Island”, Feb 17, 2008. lvii “Iran Stop Accepting US Dollars for Oil”, NOVOSTI, Russian News and information Agency, Dec 8, 2007. lviii OIC, “1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia May 2007 – March 2008”, p 9. lix Ibid. lx Ibid. lxi Patrick O’Hefferman et al, “The First Nuclear World War: The Third World Nuclear Bomb”, Hutchinson, Essex, U.K. p 66. lxii David R. Henderson, “Why Attack Iran? A Question for Mr. Romney”, November 19, 2007. lxiii Freed Zakaria, “Stalin, Mao and …Ahmadinejad: Conservatives becomes Surprisingly Charitable about Two of History’s Greatest Mass Murderers”, Newsweek, issue October 29, 2007. lxiv Harun ur Rashid, “The Bush Administration Stumbles again with North Korea”, The Daily Star, September 6, 2008. lxv Ibid. lxvi Henry Sokolski, “Fighting Proliferation: What Does the History of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Tell Us About Its Future”, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1996, p 15. lxvii “Iran Stands Towards Islamic World at OIC by FM”, Iranmania, June 20,2006 at http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=43780&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs assessed on Nov 4, 2008. lxviii Ibid. lxix Christopher King, “Admiral Fallon’s Resignation: Implications for NATO and Iran”, March 15, 2008. lxx Agencies, “Big Powers have Tarnished UN’s Image of Neutrality”, Central Chronicle, July 2, 2008. lxxi Anthony Boadle, “Calls for US to be Challenged”, Reuters, Havana, September 17, 2006. lxxii Imran N. Hosein, “The Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham: Islam and the Future Money”, Al-Tasneem, Kuala Lumpur, 2007, p 16. lxxiii “Malaysia Looking at Building Its First Nuclear Plant”, Energy Daily the Power of Earth and Beyond, July 22, 2008 available at http://www.energydaily.com/reports/Malaysia_looking_at_building_its_first_nuclear_plant_report_999.html assessed on December 22, 2008. lxxiv Surah Al-Ma-idah Verse 2.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Publications 1. Robert Axelrod, “The Evolution of Cooperation”, Basic Book, United States of America, 1984. 2. Prakash Nanda, “Nuclearisation of Divided Nations: Pakistan-India-Koreas”, Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2001. 3. Frederica M. Bunge, “North Korea – A Country Study”, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1981. 4. M. Zuberi and K. Subrahmanyam, “Nuclear Myths and Reality – Nuclear Safeguards: The Servitudes of Civilian Nuclear Technology”, ABC Publishing House, New Delhi, 1981. 5. Matthias Chang, “Future Fast Forward: The Zionist Anglo-American Empire Meltdown”, Thinkers Library, Kuala Lumpur, 2005. 6. Imran N. Hosein, “The Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham: Islam and the Future Money”, Al-Tasneem, Kuala Lumpur, 2007. 7. Jerome R.Corsi, “Atomic Iran Unfit For Command”, Cumberland House Publishing, Tennessee, 2005. 8. Henry Sokolski, “Fighting Proliferation: What Does the History of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Tell Us About Its Future”, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1996. 9. Patrick O’Hefferman et al, “The First Nuclear World War: The Third World Nuclear Bomb”, Hutchinson, Essex, U.K, Journal and Papers 1. Muqtedar Khan, “Washington’s Nuclear Policy: Moral Clarity or Double Standard?”, Foreign Policy In Focus, January 08, 2002. 2. Christopher W. Hughes, “North Korea’s Nuclear Weapon: Implication for Nuclear Ambitions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan”, NBR Special Report, No. 13, May 2007. 3. Segufta Hossain, “North Korea’s Nuclear Test: Implications For East Asian Security”, Biiss, Vol 27 (4), 2006. 4. The Economist, “The Revolution Strikes Back – A Special Report on Iran”, July 21st 2007. 5. Freed Zakaria, “Stalin, Mao and …Ahmadinejad: Conservatives becomes Surprisingly Charitable about Two of History’s Greatest Mass Murderers”, Newsweek, issue October 29, 2007. 6. Barrister Harun ur Rashid, “The Bush Administration Stumbles again with North Korea”, The Daily Star, September 6, 2008.

7. Christopher W. Hughes, “North Korea’s Nuclear Weapon: Implication for Nuclear Ambitions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan”, NBR Special Report, No. 13, May 2007. 8. “1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia, May 2007 – March 2008, OIC, 2008.

Internet Websites 1. KCNA, “DPRK Successfully Conducts Underground Nuclear Test”, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) October 9, 2006, Pyongyang, at http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2006/200610/news10/10.htm assessed on July 11, 2008. 2. Daniel Stanton, Tim LeDonne and Kat Pat Krespan, “Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation”, at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-usoccupation/ assessed on Dec 19, 2008. 3. Paul Craig Roberts, “This Time the World is not Buying It”, Antiwar.com, August 16, 2008, at http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=13309 assessed on Dec 20, 2008. 4. Lee Banville, “Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: North Korea”, Online News Hour, October 16,2007, at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/military/proliferation/countries/n-korea.html assessed on Aug 16, 2008. 5. David Henderson, “Myths and Truth about Iran”, The Wartime Economist, Antiwar.com, August 27, 2007, at http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=11505 assessed on July 11, 2008. 6. Iran Nuclear Timeline”, BBC News, August 1st,2006, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/3210412.stm assessed on Sept 11, 2008. 7. David Henderson, “A Lesson in Opportunity Cost”, The Wartime Economist, Antiwar.com, October 23, 2006, at http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9903, assessed on July 11, 2008. 8. Christopher King, “What the US Congress knows about Iraq and Iran”, Redress Information and Analysis, January 5, 2008, at http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20080105 assessed on September 10, 2008. 9. “Iranian Students to Sue Dutch Government for Study Ban”, Irancove, September 3, 2008, at http://irancoverage.com/2008/09/03/iranians-to-sue-dutch-government-for-study-ban/ assessed on December 20, 2008.

10. Rachel Weise, “North Korea Nuclear Timeline”, available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/north_korea_timeline.html assessed on September 11, 2008.

11. “Timeline: Steps Forward and Backward in North Korea Nuclear Drama” Reuters, June 26, 2008 at
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK28850620080626?sp=true assessed on Sept 19, 2008.

12. Seymour M. Hersh, “The Iran Plans”, The New Yorker, April 17, 2008, available at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?currentPage=all assessed on Sept 20, 2008. 13. Gareth Porter, “Burnt Offering”, The American Prospect, July 6,2006 available at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article 14497.htm assessed on September 20, 2008. 14. Dore Gold, “Understanding the US- Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Walt-Mearsheimer Claim”, No. 556 18 Elul 5767, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Sept 2, 2007 available at http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp? DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=179 15. Andrew Buncombe, “US and UK forces Establish ‘Enduring Bases’ in Iraq”, The Independent, Washington, April 2, 2006, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-anduk-establish-enduring-bases-in-iraq-472456.html assessed on December 20, 2008. 16. Paul Joseph Watson, “Kissinger Admits Iran Attack is about Oil”, Prison Planet, September 21, 2007, available at http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_kissinger_admits_iran_attack_about_oil.htm assessed on December 20, 2008. 17. CIA, “The World Factbook: Rank Order – Oil – Proves Reserves”, October 23, 2008 available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html assessed on November 01, 2008. 18. Christopher King, “The USA, Russia and the spinoff from Iraq and Iran”, Redresss information and Analysis, March 3, 2008, available at http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20080303 assessed on September 10, 2008. 19. “Bretton Wood System”, Wikipedia the Free Ensyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system assessed on Nov 1, 2008. 20. Krassimir Petrov, “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse”, Energy Bulletin, Jan 17, 2006, available at http://www.energybulletin.net/node/12125 assessed on October 31, 2008. 21. Press TV, “Oil Bourse Opens in Iran’s Kish Island”, Feb 17, 2008, available at http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=43476&sectionid=351020102 assessed on November 4, 2008. 22. “Iran Stop Accepting US Dollars for Oil”, NOVOSTI, Russian News and information Agency, Dec 8, 2007, available at http://en.rian.ru/world/20071208/91488137.html assessed on November 4, 2008.

23. David R. Henderson, “Why Attack Iran? A Question for Mr. Romney”, November 19, 2007 http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=11929 assessed on July 05,2008. 24. “Iran Stands Towards Islamic World at OIC by FM”, Iranmania, June 20,2006 at http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=43780&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs assessed on November 04, 2008. 25. Christopher King, “Admiral Fallon’s Resignation: Implications for NATO and Iran”, March 15, 2008, available at http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20080315 assessed on October 31, 2008. 26. Agencies, “Big Powers have Tarnished UN’s Image of Neutrality”, Central Chronicle, July 2, 2008, available at http://www.centralchronicle.com/20080702/0207194.htm assessed on November 15, 2008. 27. Anthony Boadle, “Calls for US to be Challenged”, Reuters, Havana, September 17, 2006, available at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20427000-1702,00.html?from=rss assessed on September 10, 2008. 28. “Malaysia Looking at Building Its First Nuclear Plant”, Energy Daily the Power of Earth and Beyond, July 22, 2008 available at http://www.energydaily.com/reports/Malaysia_looking_at_building_its_first_nuclear_plant_report_999.html assessed on December 22, 2008.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful