(Photo: CGTN)

Imagine this.

Following the June 12 meeting between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump in Singapore, Pyongyang agrees to surrender its nuclear arsenal in a phased manner while also accepting regular monitoring by the global nuclear watchdog through a multilateral agreement with all the Permanent Five (P5) members of the UN Security Council – the US, Britain, France, China and Russia – and the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan. Good news, right?

The decision is lauded, and quite rightly so, as a boost to regional and global security.

However, here’s the catch. About three years after the pact, the DPRK leadership unilaterally withdraws from what was meant to be a multilateral deal justifying its action as a decision taken in the supreme security interest of the DPRK and its people.

How do you think the world would react to that?

One would expect a global condemnation followed by stern international measures, including through the UN agencies, against the DPRK. The US would be perhaps the loudest in taking punitive actions, including economic sanctions, against the DPRK dubbing it as a "rogue" nation. Right?

But wait. Didn’t the US just did something similar as it pulled out of a landmark nuclear deal between Iran and the P5 plus Germany, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), inked after over a decade of negotiations in 2015? This, despite all the other signatories and international stakeholders repeatedly urging the US to remain committed to the multilateral accord and the nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verifying that Tehran has kept its end of the agreement.

Doesn’t this violation of a multilateral accords by apparently the biggest global power qualify as "rogue" behavior?

Trump’s blatant decision to quit the Iran deal comes just weeks after the US (along with allies the UK and France) launched missile attacks on Syria in a "reckless" violation of international law which, according to some analysts, amounted to a “war crime.” Earlier, Trump showed scant respect for other international treaties when he unilaterally walked out of the Paris climate accord and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Doesn’t this make the US a serial offender of international laws and norms?

"I think to the extent there is a coherent Trump strategic doctrine, it could be called the Divorce Doctrine, which obviously mirrors his personal life. He has essentially advocated unilateral US divorce from numerous commitments, whether that is the Paris accords, NAFTA, or the JCPOA," said Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Trump just killed US credibility

Trump’s whimsical decisions have certainly put a huge question mark on the US credibility and ability to deliver on any of the agreements that Washington signs henceforth, including the imminent nuclear deal with the DPRK.

“The premeditated American dismantling of an agreement that was the product of more than a decade of intense diplomacy and economic pressure marks a staggeringly counterproductive step,” said Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the Foreign Policy program at the Washington-based Brookings Institution criticizing the US move.

“That it was undertaken over the vocal objections of Washington’s closest allies and without a clear strategy of mitigating the newly heightened risks of Iranian proliferation and conventional retaliation represents an abdication of American leadership on the international stage that is unparalleled in recent history,” she added.

“If one wanted to alienate allies and partners, minimize international support for Iran’s accountability, further destabilize the Middle East, suck the oxygen out of efforts to punish Iran for its bad behavior regionally, and demonstrate to the DPRK that negotiating with the United States is worth little, then the president’s decision today is a smart move,” Brookings non-resident senior fellow said in sarcasm. 

Growing voices of resistance

The unilateral US withdrawal from the nuclear deal is being seen particularly as a big blow to Europe with Germany and France expected to pay a hefty price. The European economic heavyweights along with other big countries such as China, Russia, India, Japan and Turkey have made significant business investments in Iran following the 2015 agreement. China, Japan and India are also among the major buyers of oil from Iran.

The US decision is likely to hinder foreign businesses from operating in Iran, with even European enterprises risking US sanctions should they fail to wind up investments within six months.

In a sign of growing international resistance to Trump's unilateral move, most countries that are engaged in trade with Iran, including Washington's European allies like the UK, Germany and France have criticized the decision.

The French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire was the most outspoken in his criticism saying that it was "not acceptable" for the US to be the "economic policeman of the planet."

French President Emmanuel Macron meanwhile called for Europe to save multilateralism. “Europe is in charge of guaranteeing the multilateral order that we created at the end of World War II and which today is sometimes being shaken," he said after Trump’s announcement.

The European Union has described the US President’s decision as a “mistake," while Turkey and Russia have called the US move “wrong.” All these nations have asserted that they would continue their economic linkages with Iran intact.

China said it regretted the US decision while expressing its commitment to the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement. Also, in a clear snub to Trump’s move, Beijing on Thursday officially opened a new train route linking Iran’s capital Tehran to Bayannur in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in signs that China would continue to trade with Iran irrespective of the threat of US sanctions. 

Time to counter 'global bully'?

The measured diplomatic criticism of Trump’s decision without any potential punitive action against the US administration for its provocative breach of an international pact is like letting the neighborhood bully go scot-free for a crime that calls for legal action, just because he is rich and powerful.

By not calling for any punitive action against the US, are we admitting that the global order is based on “might is right” principle? Whatever happened to the much-touted “rules-based international order?"

Had it been another nation violating such a pact, all hell would break loose. Why then is it unfathomable for the international community to announce collective economic sanctions against the US, which is clearly showing traits of a "rogue" nation in recent times?

Is it time for nations to take a united stand against economic bullying by the US?

These are valid questions.