The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2002-2004 and to the US in 1999
tariq.fatemi@tribune.com.pk
Inevitably, the test invited a crescendo of condemnations, with the UN Security Council passing another resolution threatening the secretive, authoritarian state with tough measures, while US President Barack Obama called the test “a highly provocative act” that demands “swift and credible action by the international community”.
These are strong words but the reality, however, is that the international community has few, if any, effective options available to it against a country already in possession of nuclear weapons, however egregious its behaviour may be. With minimal trade and little meaningful contact with the outside world, North Korea has become a virtual pariah state and yet, remains near-secure, thanks to its burgeoning nuclear programme.
In such a situation, the focus has shifted to China, which remains North Korea’s lone source of trade and economic assistance. US officials have stated that the administration will judge Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s foreign policy by how he reacts to demands that China join the other powers in cooperating against North Korea. There does appear to be some truth to the impression that the Chinese are not too enamoured of Kim and are upset at his needless provocation, especially as Xi had expressed an interest in developing a “new type of relationship between the two great powers”. But what are China’s real options? While the West has been urging China to use its economic clout against North Korea, such a policy is fraught with serious risks. For one, China is opposed, in principle, to pressurising friends, especially one as unpredictable as North Korea, which has, on more than one occasion, given evidence of its irrational behaviour. Moreover, any policy that risks destabilising a key neighbour could result in chaos and uncertainty that could even lead to a unified Korea, closely aligned to the US. After all, North Korea is the only buffer between China and US ally South Korea, which may explain why China did join the Security Council’s resolution condemning the Korean nuclear test, but its official reaction was relatively mild and did not suggest any policy change towards North Korea.
Moreover, Sino-US relations are currently passing through a difficult phase, with both states deeply suspicious of each other’s long-term intentions. The Obama Administration’s ‘reset’ to Asia is seen in Beijing as directed against it, while in US perception, China’s economic clout has made it more assertive, even belligerent, in advancing its claims in the region, more specifically in the South China Sea.
It may be ironic but is nevertheless true that US policies have contributed to enhanced nuclear ambitions in some states, especially those that fear attempts to engineer a regime change or are confronted by stronger and inimical neighbours. The stark difference in US policies towards Iraq and Libya on one hand and North Korea on the other hand, has added to the belief in some states that possession of nuclear weapons does give a degree of comfort that is otherwise not available to them.
In this context, it deserves to be recalled that the very foundation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, was based on a ‘grand bargain’: the non-nuclear weapon states agreed never to acquire nuclear weapons, while the nuclear weapon states, in exchange, agreed to share the benefits of nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
While the NPT has been a useful tool that has resulted in fewer states than predicted joining the nuclear club, the failure of nuclear weapon states to honour their commitments has affected their moral standing and weakened their efforts at promoting non-proliferation.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 20th, 2013.
COMMENTS (8)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
GD,
You appear to be a great fan of wars; ww2 followed on the heals of ww1 and the ww3 shall follow on its prescribed schedule. History is time related and non ending story of human race, moving from the past order to the disorder of the future. This is the law of natural science called physics. The present does not exist and is therefore irrelevant. We know a lot about the future and have the technical ability to enter into the future but have not yet the knowledge to make our return possible in case we wish to return.
In other words we are condemned for eternity to live and experience war or peace depending upon the time we live in.
Rex Minor
What is more diabolic and provocative from the two statements ;
1) The axis of evil status given to specific countries by the USA President, or
2) The series of nuclear tests and missiles for invasion of US as claimed by the youth President of North Korea.
Rex Minor
@Author "These are strong words but the reality, however, is that the international community has few, if any, effective options available to it against a country already in possession of nuclear weapons, however egregious its behaviour may be" You wish! But wishes are no horses....! It was said in the penultimate stage of WWII also. And comparatively, fascist Germany was a highly coherent state and high loyalty of its population. Even so, the Third Reich was demolished into rubble. All communist (fascist, Islamic) states are brittle and have failure built into them. This applies to China also unless it is wise enough to go the Soviet way in a reasonable time.
@John B: Surveys over the past decade have indicated that South Koreans no longer seek reunification due to the high economic cost involved. The per-capita GDP of South Korea is some 15-20 times that of North Korea. It is North Korea that has brought up reunification over the past few years with the precondition that South Korea must get rid of its American aggressor. This plays well into North Korean state propaganda which depicts both the Koreas as two brothers that were torn apart due to the evil Americans. . @Author: The proof of China's reaction is how it voted in the UN. There have been enough soundbites on Chinese official media to speculate that this time it is different. China is extremely upset with the belligerence of North Korea and it shows its new premier in a bad light. The reaction to the test on Chinese official media this time is completely different compared to its previous reactions. . End of the day, the author is forgetting something. China needs the US since the US is its biggest market and no other such market is going to come up in the near future. On top of that while everyone talks about the decline of the US there is no single country that has as much influence on other countries as the US does. . We shall see fairly soon if nuclear arms are a sufficient deterrent by the looks of it. Any country that uses the bomb will generally meet with punitive retaliation.
N Korea has become a liability to China not much different than the extremist once considered strategic liabilities by Pakistan. China's economy is dependent on the USA and it's future is dependent on trade with economic power houses like S Korea. N Korea is nothing but a drag on China and the prior military need for a barrier between China and S Korea has essentially evaporated. China maybe reluctant to publicly slap N Korea because it doesn't want to appear to be subservient to the USA but you can bet the bank that China is going to privately put the screws to N Korea.
'For one, China is opposed, in principle, to pressurising friends, especially one as unpredictable as North Korea, which has, on more than one occasion, given evidence of its irrational behaviour'
Replace 'north korea' with 'pakistan', and the statement still holds true.
Except the author forgot to mention- north Korea wants the unification of " fatherland" and so is S. Korea. Instability in N. Korea, if it leads to unification, is all good for China as long as N. Korean stays inside Korea.
Cuddle the nukes and people become cannibals, as in North Korea, sooner or later. The much "famous" proliferator omitted out of the discussion is glaring!
The author has summed it up nicely in the last para. "While the NPT has been a useful tool that has resulted in fewer states than predicted joining the nuclear club, the failure of nuclear weapon states to honour their commitments has affected their moral standing and weakened their efforts at promoting non-proliferation." NPT is a flawed treaty and should be renegotiated and UNSC restructured. P5 have used their status as NWS to anatgonise many large nations. The technology is proliferating quite rapidly. One wonders 'what next?'.