NK nuclear tremors

IT was on January 29, 2002, that a supremely confident US president in his State of the Union address to Congress characterised Iraq, Iran and North Korea as “the axis of evil”, a phrase that appeared to strike a powerful chord in the psyche of the American nation. A year later, American troops had succeeded in toppling the Saddam regime, but even at that moment of triumph, the voices of moderation were warning that this catchy phrase had upped the rhetorical ante unnecessarily and was undermining the nascent moderate forces in Iran.

More significantly, it may have convinced the North Korean leader (described in that speech as “a pygmy”), that nuclear weapons alone could ensure his survival against an America that was determined to bring about a regime change in his country.

However, when Bush spoke of “the axis of evil”, he could not have imagined that soon these three countries would come to haunt him. While the Americans are in physical possession of Iraq, they remain holed up in the safety of the “Green Zones”, while Iran remains as defiant as ever on the issue of its nuclear programme. Thus, when on October 9 North Korea announced its first nuclear test, the Bush administration found itself in a bind, unable to act, especially with Americans making it clear that they had no appetite for fresh adventures.

The international media characterised the event as having “stunned” the world. But in reality few diplomatic observers were surprised as Pyongyang had warned of such an action that it characterised as “a historic event” conducted with “indigenous wisdom and technology”. Virtually the whole world expressed its disapproval in varying terms. Countries such as the US and its allies described the test as a “provocation” and warned that it would be met with stern measures. China’s condemnation was surprisingly strong, with Beijing calling it “a brazen act”, while Russia, too, expressed its disapproval.

America’s strong condemnation was expected, but what surprised observers was the disavowal by Washington of any desire to take military action against North Korea. In fact, President Bush hastened to reassure his people that the US would use only “diplomatic” means to deal with the crisis, obviously a recognition of the reality that beyond rhetoric and public denunciations, there was little that the US alone, or even through the UN, could do to hurt North Korea.

The country is already isolated having relations with only a few nations, while the regime maintains an iron grip on its people of a severity that would make Stalinist Russia look like a holiday resort. In fact, its isolation and extreme poverty make it virtually impervious to external pressure. Of course, the US would have little problem in laying waste to North Korea, but it would also mean the destruction of the south, along with heavy losses to American troops stationed close to the demilitarised zone. Moreover, further economic sanctions could very well destabilise the regime and encourage thousands of North Korean refugees to march into South Korea, with severe consequences for the latter.

Bush, therefore, had no option but to call for a diplomatic solution, especially with Democrats holding the administration at least partially responsible for this event. David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, pointed out that North Korea was not seeking further escalation, but was “responding from a corner” that it had been pushed into by US-backed measures.

Former Defence Secretary William Perry, writing in the Washington Post, charged that North Korea’s nuclear test “demonstrates total failure of the Bush administration’s policy towards that country for almost six years”. Former President Carter, who with Clinton’s approval, had travelled to Pyongyang in 1994 and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear programme at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the IAEA to return to the site, was also highly critical of the Bush administration.

Pakistan did not escape unscathed from this episode. Some observers alleged that Pakistan’s assistance had played a role in the North Korean programme, conveniently ignoring that Pyongyang’s programme was plutonium-based, while Pakistan’s was uranium-based. Others charged that the West’s failure to prevent Pakistan from going nuclear had set a dangerous precedent that was encouraging countries such as North Korea and Iran to follow suit.

For example, Simon Jenkins writing in the Guardian wondered why Pakistan, which was “an unstable dictatorship that has sold nuclear technology and harbours terrorists is embraced by the West”. Such sentiments only prove the wisdom of the Nawaz Sharif government in not knuckling under US pressure and going ahead with the nuclear tests. Had Pakistan not done so on the coattails of the Indians, it would not have escaped the wrath of the West.

On October 14, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution characterising the test as “a clear threat to international peace and security” and imposing strict sanctions on North Korea. But the resolution itself was a result of considerable bargaining amongst major powers, especially with Moscow and Beijing objecting to harsh measures. The resolution also rules out military action against North Korea — a concession to Russia and China. It was rejected by the North Koreans, who characterised it as “a gangster-style action”.

While the US and its allies were delighted with the resolution, much would depend on how forcefully China, North Korea’s largest economic partner with trade totalling $1.58 billion in 2005, complies with it. That the Chinese would be loath to trigger chaos in a neighbouring state was evident from the remarks of their officials who pointed out that “punishment is not the goal”, and urged all countries “to adopt a prudent and responsible attitude and refrain from taking any provocative steps that may intensify the tensions”. In other words, for China the critical factor is the maintenance of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, which could be destabilised by efforts to push Pyongyang too far.

The North Korean nuclear test has definitely created major instability and uncertainty, both in the region and with regard to the global non-proliferation regime.

First, it confirms that nuclear weapons remain the currency of power, prestige and credibility, especially for states threatened by the US, such as North Korea and Iran, which are more likely to view their safety through the prism of nuclear weapons.

Second, the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty stands exposed as ineffective and discredited, primarily because the Nuclear Five, who also happen to be the Permanent Five, have refused to honour the treaty’s second pillar on disarmament.

Third, the IAEA will have to reassess its role and seek a more nuanced and balanced approach to the issue of proliferation. Though the US and Russia have reduced the number of warheads they possess, they have developed a new generation of more lethal weapons, including usable bunker buster nuclear weapons.

Fourth, the Bush administration’s credibility has been damaged, as admitted by American commentators themselves. Moreover, its enthusiasm for military action, that had already been tempered by increasing woes in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been further dented by Pyongyang’s defiance.

Fifth, the test will also have an impact on US domestic politics, even though the administration is trying to frame the North Korean nuclear test within the debate on the war on terror.

Sixth, the American policy of threats and pressures has backfired. In fact, the incessant demand for regime change may have convinced Kim Jong Il of the need to accelerate his nuclear weapons programme, particularly after the ease with which the Americans were able to invade Iraq and oust the Saddam regime.

Seventh, hopefully the US will realise that as long as it pursues a unilateral policy, which is contemptuous of international institutions and multilateral approaches, it will continue to create new centres of insecurity and concern.

Eighth, while Russia and China are appalled by North Korea’s decision to carry out the test, both want the crisis to be resolved peacefully and oppose the US policy of punitive measures against Pyongyang to deter other would-be proliferators, primarily Iran.

Ninth, the success or failure of UN sanctions against North Korea will have a powerful influence on policymakers not only in Tehran, but also in states with nuclear ambitions. (If North Korea’s extreme isolation and excruciating poverty are factors that are likely to help it survive the sanctions, Iran’s tremendous oil wealth and its critical location would be helpful to it).

Tenth, sanctions on North Korea will only lead to its further isolation. Does the world want a nuclear-armed North Korea pushed to the wall and forced to engage in irrational action? Surrounded by hostile powers and ringed by American bases, North Korea’s security concerns are real and have to be appreciated.

Eleventh, enforcing the UNSC sanctions could be highly risky. The US can, of course, do so, but such an action is likely to splinter a fragile coalition with key countries such as Russia and China.

Lastly, the test is likely to lead to deeper ties between the US and Japan and encourage the newly elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to proceed with his plan to rewrite the pacifism clause in the constitution and to expand Japan’s military capabilities. There can thus be no doubt that North Korea’s test, which may have involved a mini-nuclear weapon, is quite likely to have a powerful impact all around.

The writer is a former ambassador.

A message for South Asia’s poor

I DO not know if the meek will inherit the earth, as the biblical saying goes. But whenever anyone among them gets recognition, I feel inspired, more so when the person happens to be from this region.

Muhammad Yunus who has won the Nobel Peace Prize is a simple, unassuming Bangladeshi who has done the entire South Asian region proud. That the honour has come to him for helping the poor for reconstructing their lives is all the more commendable.

South Asia is the most exploited area where more than 50 per cent people live on the periphery. What the Yunus experiment tells us is that even one individual, if determined, can make a dent in the closed doors behind which the poor have generally been stacked. Thirty-two years ago, he loaned from his own pocket some Rs250 to a group of famine-stricken farmers to save them from the clutches of moneylenders. Then he opened his Grameen Bank for the same purpose. Today, he has 6.5 million borrowers, mostly women, who have transformed their living conditions through self-employment.

I had the privilege of meeting Yunus early this year when he was the main speaker at the 10th anniversary of The Daily Star in Dhaka. Standing at the rostrum in his kurta-pajama, he reflected an honesty and integrity that are limited in the region. In his speech, he said that a poverty-free world was an achievable dream provided that the better off in society were willing to share their riches.

Bangladesh is rowdy, boisterous and drenched in fundamentalism. But it is a democracy. Liberals are divided but they speak out against fanaticism in one voice. The press is free if a newspaper is willing to stand up to the government. In any case, Bangladesh is far better than those countries in the region where political parties compromise with the right to rule themselves and “adjust” to an autocracy or dictatorship.

An admirable practice in Bangladesh is that a caretaker government is in power three months before the general elections are held. The purpose is to ensure that the official machinery does not take sides. (October 28 is the date for the changeover).

The last retired chief justice is appointed as the chief adviser to the next caretaker government. So far the experiment has worked reasonably well. But the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has changed the rules of the game. This has forced the other main political party, the Awami League, to threaten the boycott of polls. The election commission, too, does not look or behave like an objective body. The Awami League has demanded its reconstitution before the party decides to participate in elections.

What sustains hope in the democratic setup of Bangladesh is that even the biggest political crisis is sorted through a dialogue. The BNP and the Awami League are talking to each other, although haltingly, to find a solution to the appointment of a caretaker adviser to the caretaker government and the election commission. Despite all this, Bangladesh is teetering at the edge of violence. Religious extremism appears to have the upper hand.

Bangladesh has come a long way, from domination to liberation, to understand that the society it aims at cannot be brought about through violence. In fact, all South Asian countries face a challenge from the forces of terror which parade themselves as the protector of their identity and culture. I feel that any appeal to violence is particularly dangerous in the region because of its inherently disruptive character. We have too many fissiparous tendencies for us to take risks. They are tearing our societies apart.

The basic thing, I believe, is that the wrong means will not lead to the right results and that this is no longer merely an ethical doctrine but a practical proposition.

True, there is a sense of frustration and depression. The old buoyancy of spirit is not to be found at a time when enthusiasm and hard work are most needed. In our efforts to ensure material prosperity, I feel, we have not paid any attention to the spiritual element of human nature. I have seen over the years that in industrially-advanced countries, there has been a continuous trend of economic development. Further, this economic development has spread, though in varying degrees, to all classes.

This does not apply to our countries which are not industrially developed. Indeed, the struggle for development in our part of the world is very difficult and sometimes, in spite of the efforts made, economic inequalities not only remain but tend to become worse. Normally speaking, it may be said that the forces of such a society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and thus increase the gap between them. This holds good for countries as well as for groups or regions or classes within countries.

Soft as India is, it believes that the affluent nations of the world can build the country. Practically every field has been opened to foreign investors. Of course, they have the money and the technology. But what will happen to the sovereignty of India or, for that matter, other countries in South Asia? It is strange that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should tell the European Union at Helsinki to take advantage of special tax-free enclaves, Special Economic Zones. (Finance Minister P Chidambaram reportedly cautioned the government against the loss of revenue that would run into crores of rupees at a cabinet meeting but was silenced).

I was at Bhubaneswar last week and found how practically every district of Orissa — there are 30 of them — is being handed over to multinational companies. The two natural resources — bauxite and iron ore — are being leased to them with thousands of acres of agricultural land for the infrastructure. There is neither consideration for the rehabilitation of the uprooted nor for the depletion of natural resources.

The Nobel Prize committee has rightly said that lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. But how can this be possible when the working of globalisation is loaded in favour of developed countries? Is there no way to develop without turning our back on what we can do on our own? Every field does not have to be opened to foreign investment. We can choose as China does.

The message from Yunus of Bangladesh is that the poor can work their way through if they build the nation into a cooperative endeavour. The nation can be stretched to become a region. The South Asia Economic Union is the answer to the problems of backwardness and poverty.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

The new republic

FOCUS on war and the economy. That was the blunt message that George Bush’s chief political strategist sent out to Republican candidates the last time that Americans went to the polls in midterm elections. And sure enough, Karl Rove’s determination to exploit national security and the fear of terrorism paid off against the frightened and divided Democrats.

In November 2002, the Republicans enlarged their majority in the House of Representatives and regained control of the Senate. Two years later, on the coat-tails of Mr Bush’s re-election campaign, the Republicans pulled the trick a second time, strengthening their grip on both houses in a campaign that again centred on their leader’s record and image as a war president. Ever since, there has been a Republican lock on the legislative process on Capitol Hill.

There is still nearly a month to run in the midterm election campaign of 2006, and the ability of the Bush-Rove Republicans to win elections that liberals feel should rightfully be theirs must never be underestimated; but it is clear that there is a different mood on the other side of the Atlantic this time.

With Iraq still in deep turmoil, Mr Bush’s ratings have tanked since he defeated John Kerry two years ago, and worsened further as a result of Hurricane Katrina. With occasional variations, every opinion poll for months has shown low scores for the president, high dissatisfaction with the war and with Congress and a strong mood for change.

On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Mr Bush launched another war-based election campaign effort, stressing his credentials as a defender of American security. It briefly seemed to win back some support - but now the Republicans have fallen back again. In this week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll, Democrats lead Republicans by 54% to 41% among registered voters, Mr Bush has an approval rating of only 39%, and 66% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

Just as in 2002 and 2004, this year’s campaign has been constantly drawn back to national security issues. But the striking difference this time is the manner in which the issues have been addressed. Mr Rove’s attempt to deliver a hat-trick of victories on post-9/11 security issues is being undermined by the sheer scale of the continuing carnage in Iraq, the anxiety that US strategy is provoking, not ending, violence and the no longer unspoken fear across American society that Iraq could be the new Vietnam. As a result, Democrats have had the confidence, which they did not possess before, to run against the White House and against Mr Bush. This year, it is Democratic campaign ads that feature the president’s face and words, not Republican ones. Republican candidates - like Tory leaders here - prefer being photographed with his possible successor, John McCain, a more consensual and less tarnished figure than Mr Bush, and one who attracts independent voters in a way with which the now unpopular president cannot compete.

—The Guardian, London