New Delhi, India - "Most dangerous" is an interesting phrase, because it's first qualified by a question: "Most dangerous" to whom? North Korea is not a direct danger to any nuclear power: It is friendly with China and Russia; it is, or was, a partner of Pakistan; it is indifferent to India and Israel; and it has no proven capacity to reach France or Britain. It is certainly dangerous to America, however, if not as a nuclear power then because of its ability to play havoc with two peaceful, stable economic powerhouses in its neighborhood, South Korea and Japan. That certainly does constitute a threat to world peace.
Second: how dangerous is "dangerous"? Is North Korea more dangerous than the Soviet Union when it was the "Red Menace"? The Soviet Union apparently threatened to blow off the Western world? Or what about when the "Yellow Menace" China was threatening civilization according to on the pages of the right-wing media? North Korea barely has double-digit capacity in nuclear weapons. France has suggested that its nuclear test could be of such low capability as to barely constitute a threat at all.
However, this is of no comfort to Japan. Pyongyang has enough firepower to repeat a Hiroshima or a Nagasaki. But the paradox of course is that apart from the instances cited from the end of the Second World War, the most powerful offensive weapon in history has only served as the most powerful defensive weapon in history. The consequences of its use, and the certainty of retaliation on a level that would make victory and defeat meaningless, has ensured that there has been no first-use, and therefore no second-use. The Soviet Union, China, Israel, India and Pakistan all justified going nuclear on the grounds that this was a guarantor of their safety.
North Korea has offered the same explanation. On 3 October it described its impending nuclear status as a "war deterrent" and protection against infringement of its sovereignty. The potential aggressor, not named, was clearly America. There was a heavy nudge towards Iraq. So what makes North Korea different? Very simply, that its government does not inspire trust. Will the government, if ever under legitimate pressure, sacrifice the interests of its people and launch destructive havoc? Is the problem nuclear weapons or irresponsible government? What we do know is that the shackles that held nuclear power in the closed space occupied by the five victors of World War II have loosened. There are nine nuclear powers, and a couple (including possibly Japan) on the cusp. A recent report said that three nations have begun enriching uranium in the past year, on three different continents. Even nations that officially supported America's intervention in Iraq have returned to their security drawing boards to take another look.
Punishment is a good idea in theory; no one has suggested practical options. To deny North Korea food would mean punishing its people, not its government. If anyone can come up with a failsafe way of airlifting the regime out of Pyongyang, the Security Council would, I am sure, be delighted to hear the proposal. An isolated and impoverished dictatorship could expose the impotence of superpowers that lost sight of weapons of mass destruction in their search for weapons of mass destruction.
Whether by accident China now has two surrogate powers with nuclear weapons aimed at its two major economic competitors in Asia: Pakistan against India, and North Korea against Japan. India is nuclear. Japan should become the tenth member of the club.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
