Obama and Nuclear Proliferation

I have been encouraged to hear that Obama, in Europe this week for a variety of meetings, is talking with Russia about reducing stocks of nuclear warheads, but in the same week he has a couple of contradictory speeches.

First, Obama reiterated his support for missile installations in east Europe, claimed to be to protect Europe from a theoretical attack by Iran. How can he justify asking Russia to reduce armaments while continuing to add arms in eastern Europe?

Second, North Korea launched a missile that they claimed was to put a communication satellite in orbit. US forces tracking the missile claim no orbital insertion was achieved, but North Korea says it was a success. Immediately afterwards, Obama spoke of the importance of stopping proliferation. The obvious double standard: It is OK for the US to build missiles and emplace them all around the world, but it is not OK for North Korea to launch a missile, even if they claim it is for peaceful purposes.

The double standard also stands with Iran, of course, where enrichment of uranium is not to be tolerated by other countries, even if Iran claims it is only for nuclear power.

While Obama so far seems to be much more of a “straight talker” than Bush was, he is definitely capable of massively hypocritical statements within just a couple of days.

Speaking of senselessness, Noam Chomsky had some interesting points about the continued existence of NATO during an interview on Democracy Now. Why does NATO continue to exist when it’s stated purpose, protection of western European states from Russia and “the east,” is no longer an issue? Why has NATO turned into a “global intervention force” for the US?