Anticipated, but not expected. Now the world looks to China.

North Korean regime.

Formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, this economy is one of the world’s most socialist and isolated. As the tide of Communism receded, it left behind shipwrecked relics such as this Stalinist regime and former puppet of China. It is totalitarian promoting the leader myth most commonly associated with tyrannical regimes. The leader, Kim Jonh-il, prefers to be known as “Dear Leader” and presides over a unicameral system of government in the capital, Pyongyang.

The Orwellian leaders’ objective function is self-preservation rather than the democratic principles of security and well being of the 23m North Korean citizens. The country has endured political persecution, human rights abuses on horrendous scales, famines and has a 1m strong army to silence dissent.

In 1994 at Geneva, the US and North Korea formally agreed that Pyongyang would cease pursuing atomic weapons in return for security from Washington. This was part of a wider and global sense of nuclear non-proliferation in the after math of the Cold War.

Why the drift to nuclear?

Much blame has been directed at the two key actors of influence: the US and China. It is fair to say that the vernacular of the Bush adminsitration could only serve to make unstable, paranoid states nervous of the West’s intentions. Named as part of an “axis of evil” whilst the US invaded Iraq, but hesitates over the potentially nuclear aware Iran, joining the nuclear club is perceived as a deterrent.

After 9/11, the US and UK over-reacted catastrophically and scarred the international community both psychologically and physically. Soon after in October 2002, North Korea defied Geneva and announced it was involved in uranium enrichment programmes and then in January 2003 it withdrew from the Non Proliferation Treaty. It has also supplied Nodong type ballistic missiles to Iran and Syria.

Coupled with US bellicosity, the increased insecurity of such regimes has been heightened by the hypocritical stance of the West in enforcing a double standard of nuclear ownership. The UK is currently in the middle of talks (albeit with the openness of a stealth bomber) on renewing its nuclear capabilities. Faced with the uncertainty of US capricious foreign policy, the West’s renewal of atomic weapons and the increased perception that being nuclear brings security, North Korea’s actions are part of a wider and dangerous theme in international affairs.

The original nuclear “club” from the Cold War consisted of the UK, US, France, China and Russia. Since 1998, Pakistan, India and Israel have become nuclear against the wishes of the international community. Worryingly, there are now 9 members of this club and the more recent incentive for joining is the apparent weight it brings and protection from invasion.

It is now beyond any doubt whatsoever that the US cannot force regime change in Korea and cannot use military action. This was possibly never really seriously entertained with the ostentatious opposition of South Korea and China who could not envisage the havoc such action would ensue.

The international reaction to this horrific and historical event is one of abject horror and condemnation. The nuclear test shows utter contempt for the principle of international law and the rectitude of living in an international society. Yet it is alarming that we have ended up in a position whereby we are having to respond to such events rather than prevent them.

Consequences in International Relations.

A terrifying consequence would be increased proliferation if North Korea appears to have benefited from its actions. If left unpunished, there is an increased perception of reward from owning such destructive weapons. Yet this line of argument is also dangerous and must be debated sensitively. The problem is as intractable as it is complex.

Iran will certainly feel emboldened by the move and is the only country to have voiced support for Kim Jong-il. Dan Plesch writes in today’s Guardian “But for my Iranian friends, waking up to a Pakistani bomb can be compared to living in a non nuclear Britain and waking up to find Belgium had tested a nuclear weapon.” Certainly, if Iran did gain such technology, the consequences for the wider Middle East become much more complex and volatile.

Japan, the only country in history to have suffered a nuclear attack, has also been making noises about acquiring such weapons. The Cabinet Secretary, Yasyo Fukyolo, in 2002 intimated nuclear programmes might become a possibility and the current Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is also believed to be open to the idea.

This potential domino effect must be addressed, as proliferation in itself is a threat to us all. A sure consequence has been the violent undermining of the Non Proliferation Treaty, which although not altogether dead, is in dire need of resuscitation.

The US has vehemently condemned North Korea’s action in a diatribe which has reverberated around the world. As aforementioned, it is now inconceivable that military action can be taken against the regime by the US. It is likely that if action is not taken immediately, the idea of possessing nuclear weapons will gain further credence in the developing world.

China is where the world is looking in the hope that it will take its global responsibilities more seriously than it has done in the past. Despite its policy of containment, diplomacy has clearly failed and needs to be resumed urgently. Betrayed and humiliated by its former puppet state, North Korea has stretched China’s tacit support beyond any tolerable level.

China has declared it favours sanctions via the UN. Yet sanctions run the possibility of isolating the regime further and push the already politically unstable state into more drastic action. Remember the consequences of the League of Nations’ sanctions on Italy when it invaded Abyssinia in 1935. It split the international community apart, undermined the moral legitimacy of the international institution and had the exact opposite effect of what was intended.

The prescription is surely to reflect calmly on the real possibility of reinvigorating the Non Proliferation Treaty by promoting nuclear disarmament. Diplomacy must resume immediately; the US needs to re-think its attitude towards its foreign and nuclear policy.

The double standard of the West must end: the alternative is surely unthinkable.