The Curious Politics of Condemnation: When Pariahs Play Referee

International diplomacy is often compared to a chess game, but sometimes it feels more like an elaborate theater, where even the least likely actors demand a spotlight. Take the scenario where North Korea—a nation infamous for isolation, nuclear threats, and human rights abuses—steps up as the vocal critic of another country's alleged violation of sovereign rights. It’s a diplomatic plot twist worthy of satire.

But here’s the fascinating paradox: authoritarian regimes routinely become some of the loudest voices defending the concept of sovereignty. Why? Perhaps it’s self-preservation. Any precedent that weakens the shield of sovereignty—even against governments whose policies they otherwise abhor—can boomerang back to threaten their own power. When global norms shift, all regimes, autocratic or democratic, feel the tremor.

There’s also a deep, historical irony. After World War II, the United Nations chartered a world order built around respecting borders. It was meant to prevent tyranny, yet in practice, the curtain of “sovereign rights” can protect tyrants as much as it shields the vulnerable. As a result, states that persistently test the patience of the international community still frequently invoke the doctrine of non-intervention as their first line of defense.

Is this hypocrisy—or a reminder that the rules of international relations are driven by self-interest more than principle? The answer, perhaps, is both. When voices like North Korea’s enter the global debate, they force us to ask uncomfortable questions: Who gets to enforce the rules? Whose sovereignty is sacrosanct? Can a norm be both righteous and misused at once?

In the theater of global politics, paradoxes abound. Sometimes, the most isolated states become involuntary mirrors, reflecting the contradictions at the heart of the international order itself.

This article was inspired by the headline: 'North Korea condemns US strike on Iran as violation of sovereign rights'.