As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival
North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.
But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.
His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.
Yes, of course. But what would the alternative achieve? If a great power decides to defy a (binding) resolution, how would the others enforce it? Bear in mind that client states or otherwise allied nations wouldn’t want to intervene against their masters or allies. You’d either end up splitting the UN, at which point it’s no longer United, or form alliances outside of it, like the sanctions against Russia (which not everyone implemented either).
International law (like any other law) only works if it is either respected or enforced. Criminal cartels also defy the law, and if they’re powerful enough to resist enforcement, the law might as well not apply to them.
So yes, this isn’t how law should work, but power corrupts a lot of things, the rule of law included.
I’m not saying this state of affairs is good. Reality often isn’t, and I wish it were.