Certainly, North Korean strongman Kim Jong-il II's last-stand missile testing is provocative, offensive and should be condemned. However, using the United Nations Security Council, as Japan has been pushing, with the support of the US and Britain, to impose tough sanctions on North Korea after the missile test, would be like pouring oil on fire. Certainly, China's role -- given its long-standing political and financial leverage over the North Korean regime -- should be to try to resolve the issue diplomatically.

Surely, China's reaction so far, to caution against UN Security Council sanctions, but to urge North Korea to stop the foolish missile testing but to seek a negotiated solution, is correct. The world is very weary of unilateral action -- no matter the merits -- seen to be pushed by the U.S.

In addition, it does appear that North Korea's missile launch is in part an attempt at bargaining. The North Korean regime is now clearly feeling the bite of U.S. financial sanctions, which it is desperate to relieve. Ironically, the North Koreans' high-risk attempt to draw attention to itself, could actually misfire if the U.S. decides rather than to listen, to tighten the financial screws even further through punitive action endorsed by the UN Security Council. However, even if such action appears appealing and just on paper to Washington, it should be avoided in this tinder-box Asian standoff.

It appears, moreover, that the North Korean missile firing was more an attempt to refocus U.S. attention back on the stalled talks than to show it can be a threat to the territory of the United States. Thus, North Korea's timing of its missile firing to coincide with the launch of the shuttle Discovery on Independence Day in the U.S. This underscores the point that it was clearly meant to attract maximum attention. It would indeed be disastrous if the neo-cons in Washington used the firing of the missile to push for tougher sanctions. A rhetorical response which slams North Korea again as part of an "axis of evil" alongside Iran would not ease tensions, but would further harden attitudes.

If Japan and the U.S., with support from Britain, pushed unilaterally for a tough draft UN resolution, it's likely only to stoke further tensions. United Nations Security Council-endorsed sanctions are certainly not the best way to solve the crisis. For starters, the Security Council is really not seen as a legitimate body by the majority of developing countries, after the way in which the U.S. in the past has used it to its own ends to force support for its decision to start an unnecessary war in Iraq. So, action against North Korea, endorsed by the Security Council in this suspicious international climate is unlikely to be enthusiastically received around the globe.

The six-party (U.S., Japan, Russia, South Korea, China and North Korea) talks are still the only forum that enjoys broad acceptance by the international community - that is, outside of the U.S., UK and Japan, which certainly on their own do not fully represent the international community -- as a peaceful way to resolve the crisis. It would be more persuasive for China to play its international security role, afforded by its new status as an economic giant, to persuade North Korea, through diplomacy, to give up its nuclear weapons programme in return for fresh investment and aid.

Any solution to the crisis must also include the U.S. resuming face-to-face talks with the North Korean regime. Finally, the North Korean missile firing move must be seen against the backdrop of the collapse of the global nuclear non-proliferation framework. India, Pakistan and Israel are now nuclear weapons powers outside the framework. And Iran, although a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, is playing hardball. This means that the leading Western nuclear powers must even-handedly ensure that these countries are legally committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- whether allies or not. There can't be one set of rules for allies, and another for enemies, no matter how repellent these enemies are. Abandoning manufacturing or ownership of weapons which could terminate humanity, should be the moral ideal.