Itâe(TM)s not a new question. But itâe(TM)s one that we need to keep asking, now more than ever: who are we to lecture anyone about developing nuclear weapons? I use âeoeweâe loosely, since Canada doesnâe(TM)t have nuclear weapons. But we co-operated with the U.S. in developing theirs and Canada doesnâe(TM)t say too much about the Americansâe(TM) nuclear arsenal, since weâe(TM)re generally considered to be shielded by it.

A common answer to the above question is that we donâe(TM)t want anyone to have nuclear weapons. So, anyone who has them or is developing them or wants to develop them should be rebuked.

But we also recognize the reality that a few powerful nations have nuclear weapons, and a couple of them like to throw their military weight around. It could hardly have escaped the notice of Iran and other countries suspected of having nuclear weapons ambitions that the U.S. and the U.K. donâe(TM)t replace diplomacy with bombing when it comes to dealing with nuclear countries like Pakistan, China, and North Korea.

Take a look at what is happening in Pakistan right now. Al-Qaeda has been regrouping in Pakistan, on the border of Afghanistan, and some reports claim theyâe(TM)re as strong as ever . We all remember what happened to Afghanistan in 2001 when their country was a safe haven for al-Qaeda. There was no indecision on the part of the U.S. government; Afghanistan clearly needed to be bombed to rubble.

But in Pakistan, itâe(TM)s different. U.S. officials donâe(TM)t want to offend Pakistani President Musharraf . They want to work with him. They want to be diplomatic. Theyâe(TM)re very unhappy about the âeoesafe havenâe al-Qaeda has in Pakistan, but they donâe(TM)t want to strain their relationship with Pakistan, a country that just so happens to have nuclear weapons.

Check out China, another nuclear country. The U.S. thinks theyâe(TM)re selling nuclear supplies to Iran . China has a terrible human rights record (wasnâe(TM)t that supposedly the other big reason that Iraq needed âeoeregime changeâe once it was admitted that they had no weapons of mass destruction?) and their political system could hardly be more repugnant to the U.S., which has always staunchly declared its opposition to any type of communism.

But will China need âeoeregime changeâe as Iraq and Afghanistan did? Not very likely. The current U.S. strategy with China goes something like this:

U.S.: China is selling nuclear supplies to Iran! They need to stop that!

China: Whatever.

U.S.: [Sputters]

North Korea managed to reach nuclear capability despite the consternation of the international community, and they are reported to have conducted a nuclear test. Imagine that: a country that actually is developing weapons of mass destruction. Has the U.S. asked the international community for a coalition of the willing to bomb North Korea? No. Unlike Iran, for whom both U.S. Democrats and Republicans agree that âeoenothing is off the table,âe in North Korea theyâe(TM)re going to see what some strong words and sanctions can accomplish instead.

What would any intelligent leader of a non-nuclear country conclude, especially if his country is at political odds with the U.S., and has resources that the U.S. wants? And how can we fault him for coming to such a conclusion? Suddenly, the old cold war doctrine of âeoemutually assured destructionâe doesnâe(TM)t sound so dumb if youâe(TM)re the leader of Iran, does it?

It is easy to see the problem with more and more countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons. That Canada has chosen not to pursue a nuclear arms program despite our capability of doing so, is a good thing. It would also be nice if other nations would follow our example, but itâe(TM)s easy to understand why they donâe(TM)t.

As one of the U.S.âe(TM)s best friends, shielded as we are by their military might, it is hard for Canadians to be seen as credible in the eyes of countries like Iran and North Korea when we say they shouldnâe(TM)t have nuclear weapons. After all, Canada hasnâe(TM)t done anything to stop U.S. aggression in Iraq, and our military helped them bomb Afghanistan.

Iran, North Korea, and other countries that the international community are scolding over nuclear proliferation donâe(TM)t understand why it is that aggressive nations like the United States and the United Kingdom, who start wars based on the doctrine of pre-emption, can have nuclear weapons, but they canâe(TM)t. They see it as hypocrisy. And they are right.

If we want to see an end to nuclear proliferation, then we need to encourage an end to western aggression against non-nuclear countries. Our role as Canadians should be to tell our good friends to the south of us that we will no longer support their wars, and that we will speak out forcefully against their saber-rattling. We might even want to let them know that it is just as immoral for them to have nuclear weapons as it is for anyone else in the world.

Iran has learned from North Korea and Pakistan that once they have nukes, they will be much safer. Before we lecture them or anyone else about developing nuclear weapons, we must first rebuke the U.S. for giving them such a strong incentive for doing so.

Michelle Langlois

Michelle Langlois

Michelle is the editor of In Cahoots and is based in Toronto, Ontario. She has written articles and book reviews for rabble.ca, and occasionally produces videos for rabbletv.