Good nukes, bad nukes

The starkly divergent international reactions to North Korea’s abortive launch of the Unha-3 missile (disguised as a rocket to place a “satellite” into orbit), and to India’s successful test of the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (explicitly aimed at enhancing nuclear weapons’ delivery systems), reveal complex realities underlying world politics.
The UN Security Council fell on Pyongyang like a ton of bricks as soon as its provocative missile went kaput. “Strongly condemning” the North’s long-range rocket test as a “serious violation” of past resolutions, the UNSC embarked on a new round of economic sanctions to punish the new regime of Kim Jong-un. The US promptly cancelled promised food aid and the arc lights once again shone embarrassingly on China for technically and financially assisting North Korea’s missile programme.
Agni-V, on the other hand, could have happened in a different universe altogether. The US endorsed it by citing India’s “solid non-proliferation record” and “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons. A White House spokesperson praised India as a responsible state. Even the Chinese publicly played down any alarm they may have felt about Shanghai and Beijing now being within India’s strike range through Agni-V. No fury emanated from the UN or the European Union, even though China slyly insinuated that Agni-V had 70 per cent of Europe’s territory within its sights.
Comparison of the responses to the North Korean and the Indian missile tests shows that Pyongyang has a huge reputation deficit while New Delhi has come a long way since the universal chastisement of its 1998 Pokhran-2 nuclear weapons tests. Today, India may acquire high-end weapons that undoubtedly add to arms race spirals in Asia, but it no longer gets hollered at by world powers.
Kid-glove treatment as reward for India’s responsible behaviour has caused heartburn among non-proliferation lobbyists and advocates of consistent application of global pressure on states that develop nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. But at the level of international political will, India has carved out for itself a massive grandfather clause and the credit for this goes to India’s persistent diplomacy over the last decade, its flourishing and non-threatening democracy, and the world’s acceptance that India does not covet the territory or resources of other countries. North Korea obviously represents the antithesis of all these qualities; it is the enfant terrible. Even a failed missile test by this trigger-happy nation invites the wrath of the world.
Yet, the careful construction of a pacifist image through conscious diplomatic conduct is only part of the explanation for why India “gets away” while North Korea endures international flogging. There is a structural reason as well — India’s rising military and economic might is considered a good development by most major powers. Agni-V is a manifestation of India’s attempt to reduce the Asian imbalance of power which is heavily loaded in China’s favour. Neither the US, the EU, Japan, Africa, Latin America or Southeast Asian powers mind if India grows to eventually be an equal of China. India fulfills the unspoken but real global need to ensure that China does not grow without competition.
New Delhi gets the benefit of the doubt on missile launches and other allegedly “troubling” actions, such as buying oil from Iran, because of international fear that shackling India as a criminal at this stage would be a colossal blunder that plays into China’s ascent as the sole hegemon of Asia and of the developing world at large.
Besides these structural calculations about Asian and global balance of power, the politics of labelling states as “good” or “evil” is also a result of alliance patterns. That is why does Israel escapes world censure for its clandestine nuclear weapons possession while Iran is perpetually in the cross hairs of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN Security Council, the US and the EU, despite the fact that Tehran has not yet devised a nuclear weapon.
Israel does suffer from an international image problem regarding its treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but hardly any major power criticises Tel Aviv’s possession of nuclear weapons or demands that it should abandon them. Iran has been the villain incarnate ever since former US President George W. Bush coined the infamous phrase “axis of evil” because it works against Western interests in West Asia. Suppose Iran become pliant and bent over to promote Israeli and Western preferences in that region, the IAEA would stop artificially elevating Iran to the top of its agenda. The manipulation of international institutions to castigate particular states for weapons programmes, human rights abuses, aggression, lack of democracy etc. is integral to upholding the present world order and its unique class system of rating countries.
In a landmark book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Columbia University’s Mahmood Mamdani shows how this politics played out during Bush junior’s war on terrorism. Muslim states that allied with the US (eg Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Jordan) were painted as “moderates” while regimes that opposed the US (eg Iran or Syria) were excoriated as promoters of terrorism. Impartially speaking, the Saudis oppress their women and citizens in general far more viciously than the Ayatollahs in Tehran. While regime change in Damascus or Tehran is indeed sought by Syrian and Iranian people, it is much more desperately desired in Riyadh.
Labelling and agenda-setting through international institutions is an insidious method of domination in world affairs. The day the Security Council, the IAEA or the International Criminal Court (ICC) “go after” governments in, say, Bahrain, Israel or Uganda, that will be the day when “badness” will decline uniformly across the planet. The ICC has thus far played it safe and not investigated or prosecuted elites of states whose foreign policies are pro-Western for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
We in India should realise that it would not take long for international institutions to change labels and tag us as the “bad boys” if we begin challenging global hegemonic practices. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi went from “mad dog” to good to despicable in a span of 30 years, depending on when he was useful and when he was detrimental to European and American interests. India cannot be complacent just because it is currently enjoying a spell of positive labelling. It must join hands with other emerging powers like the Brics states, which are dissatisfied with the bias and double standards of post-World War II and post-Cold War institutions, to design alternative international political institutions (as well as economic ones that replace the Bretton Woods system).
Hypocrisy shines through differential application of international legal and moral standards in the present institutional architecture governing the world. Only an institutional revolution shouldered by emerging powers can correct this fundamental flaw and generate outcomes that are fair and democratic.

The writer is vice-dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs and the author of the recent book International Organisations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones