North Korea’s has come out of the nuclear closet. Immediate international reactions show dismay and criticism of Pakistan, for allegedly supplying North Korea with uranium enrichment technology in exchange for Nodong (Ghauri) missiles and missile technology. It is believed that a cash strapped Pakistan is selling nuclear technology to bank-roll its arms race with India. For the Bush administration, this is a failure to enforce the NPT regime. However, it can fall back on Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech and urge for greater vigilance of North Korea’s nuclear programme. 

  The Bush administration will need damage control in its relations with Pakistan. The critics of growing US-Pakistan relations are asking tough questions regarding the value of Pakistan as an ally in the war against terrorism when it is harming other US strategic interests. Some exchange of technology between Pakistan and North Korea took place after September 11, which could lead the Bush administration to rethink the lifting of sanctions against Pakistan. 

  How does all this impact upon the strategic situation in Northeast Asia? China, Japan, and South Korea would need to review their strategies vis-à-vis North Korea to include nuclear deterrence. However, the critical question here is of weaponization in North Korea. The US demand for dismantling its nuclear program is not likely to be met by North Korea.  The countries in Northeast Asia are aware of North Korea’s clandestine nuclear programme. China had, before it became a signatory to the NPT, helped the DPRK’s programme. South Korea and Japan have ensured that they have the security of the US nuclear umbrella to deter China and North Korea. In this scenario, the most pressing concern would be to ensure that North Korea’s weaponization programme is deprived of sophisticated delivery systems and related technology. 

  On the diplomatic front, an effort to involve North Korea in regional security talks is imperative. This will, of course, throw up problems related to DPRK’s status as a nuclear weapons power. As a first step, a North-South security dialogue between the two Koreas, to work on a no first use declaration by from DPRK could be initiated. Instead of wishing away the North Korean nuclear programme, pragmatic steps need to be taken within Northeast Asia to ensure that peace is not threatened. It must be remembered that North Korea is probably using its declaration of having nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to forge greater links with the outside world. 

  For the US, the issue of nuclear terrorism is of equal concern in regard to North Korea’s nuclear program. This aspect of nuclear proliferation raises greater security concerns than state-to-state nuclear conflict in North East Asia. North Korea could become the center for supplying training and materials for building ‘dirty bombs.’ However, this is not likely unless North Korea is further isolated and condemned. According to official statements, the US wants to settle this issue by peaceful negotiations and might cut a deal whereby North Korea brings its program under international scrutiny and eventually caps it in exchange for US recognition and economic aid. 

  The Chinese role in the current scene is not clear.  China could prevail upon North Korea to roll back its program but, at the moment, no such proposal is forthcoming from Beijing. China’s interests lie in promoting peace in the region and it can ensure this either through a balance of power approach by building North Korea as a counterweight to Japan and South Korea; or by preserving the status quo. It is likely to go in for the second option, as this would also ensure smoother Sino-Japanese and Sino-US relations. 

  Finally, it is worth noting the leading role of the US in global politics. The US has promoted a regime-based global order that it wishes to lead by example. However, the Bush administration has walked out of several international agreements including the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Biological Weapons Convention, and has abrogated the ABM treaty. It only complies selectively with the Chemical Weapons Convention. This does not bode well for international arms control and disarmament agreements or for establishing a stable global order. Many other countries could go the way of North Korea if multilateral security regimes start breaking down. The US assertion that it has the right to conduct pre-emptive strikes while others do not, would further harden its image as a global bully rather than a global leader.