Trump vs. Kim: The Nuclear Hypocrisy of Imperialism

The spectacle of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un’s nuclear standoff was never truly about disarmament. For those who understand the long shadow of colonialism, it revealed something far more familiar: the age-old struggle between imperial domination and national sovereignty, where the powerful dictate terms to the weak under the guise of moral authority. When Kim Jong-un capitulated to U.S. demands to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program, it was not a victory for global security—it was the latest chapter in a long history of imperial coercion.  

The fundamental hypocrisy is glaring. The United States, which possesses the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal, has no moral standing to police other nations on nuclear weapons. If these weapons are truly as catastrophic as Washington claims, then why does it continue to modernize its own stockpile? Why do American leaders speak of non-proliferation while simultaneously investing billions in upgrading their nuclear capabilities? The answer is simple: nuclear weapons are not dangerous when they serve imperial interests. They are only dangerous when they threaten Western hegemony.  

The Colonial Logic of Nuclear Apartheid

The nuclear order today operates on the same logic as colonial rule—an entrenched hierarchy where some nations are permitted to wield absolute power while others are forcibly disarmed. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain—are all nuclear-armed states. Their veto power ensures that no meaningful action can be taken against them, while they freely impose sanctions, wage wars, and dictate terms to weaker nations. This is not an accident; it is by design. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of imperial dominance, allowing a select few to project power unchecked.  

The West’s selective outrage is particularly evident in the Middle East. Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), was subjected to crippling sanctions and forced to abandon its nuclear program under intense Western pressure. Meanwhile, Israel, which has never acknowledged its nuclear arsenal and remains outside the NPT, faces no such demands. The message is clear: nuclear weapons are only a "threat" when they are in the hands of nations that resist Western control. For allies, they are a strategic asset.  

The Myth of Benevolent Nuclear Powers

Western leaders insist that their nuclear arsenals are "safe" because they are governed by democratic institutions. But history tells a different story. The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a display of unmatched brutality. Britain and France maintained their nuclear programs even as they fought losing battles to preserve their colonial empires. Russia’s nuclear might was built on the bones of Soviet expansionism. These are not responsible stewards of peace—they are empires that have wielded destruction as a tool of control.  

The argument that nuclear weapons in Western hands are somehow "stabilizing" is equally absurd. If these weapons are so safe, why does the U.S. refuse to adopt a "no first use" policy? Why does NATO continue to insist on the right to preemptive nuclear strikes? The truth is that the West’s nuclear doctrine is not about deterrence—it is about domination.  

South Africa’s Lesson: Real Disarmament is Possible  

There is an alternative. South Africa, once a nuclear-armed state, voluntarily dismantled its program in the 1990s. At the 72nd UN General Assembly, then-President Jacob Zuma reaffirmed this commitment, declaring that "no hands are safe" with weapons of mass destruction. This was not an act of weakness, but of moral clarity. If the U.S. and other nuclear powers were sincere about global security, they would follow South Africa’s example.  

Yet, instead of disarmament, we see escalation. The U.S. plans to spend $1.7 trillion over the next three decades modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Britain has voted to renew its Trident program. France clings to its force de frappe as a symbol of national prestige. Russia flaunts its hypersonic missiles as a warning to the West. None of these actions suggest a genuine commitment to peace—only an obsession with maintaining supremacy.  

The Path Forward: Abolition, Not Control

The solution is not tighter non-proliferation treaties or more sanctions on defiant nations. The solution is total nuclear abolition. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted by 122 nations in 2017, offers a framework for this vision—yet not a single nuclear power has signed it. Their refusal exposes the lie at the heart of their non-proliferation rhetoric: they do not want a world free of nuclear weapons. They want a world where only they have them.  

The struggle between Trump and Kim was never about safety. It was about power. And until the U.S. and its allies confront their own nuclear hypocrisy, their demands for disarmament will ring hollow. If nuclear weapons are truly a threat to humanity, then they must be eliminated—starting with the arsenals of those who claim the right to rule the world.  

As Zimbabwe’s late President Robert Mugabe once declared at the UN, the time has come for nations to "blow their trumpets" not for war, but for peace. But peace cannot coexist with imperialism. It cannot flourish under the shadow of nuclear terror. The choice is clear: either all nations disarm, or none of us are truly safe.