Editorial: Korea the latest threat

Where is the anti-nuclear movement at times like this? North Korea's announced intention to acquire nuclear weapons adds another highly volatile element to the risks to world peace. It is not simply that North Korea remains a closed, cantankerous state with a moribund economy and a population kept from starvation by the generosity of countries it likes to antagonise. Failed states are frequently dangerous, but North Korea is in a particularly delicate position in the world's strategic balance.

If there is any power to challenge the United States in the post-communist world it is China. North Korea's nuclear intentions have put it offside with China too, but there is no doubt that any military response by the US and its allies runs a risk of antagonising Beijing. That will be one reason the Bush White House has been notably more circumspect in its reaction to North Korea's nuclear preparations than it has been to Iraq.

Another reason for the Administration's determination to play down the North Korean threat is that it believes Pyongyang has a history of whipping up this sort of crisis whenever it thinks it can win more aid or concessions in a "settlement". It was just such a settlement in 1994 - the gift of a non-threatening nuclear power project to which New Zealand contributed - that North Korea has now dishonoured, with its resumption of a weapons programme.

Kim Jong Il and his cohorts have decided this is another opportune moment, noting that South Korea has just elected a new president, Roh Moo Hyun, dedicated to continuing reconciliation with the North, and no doubt also noting another wave of protest in the South against the American presence. But principally they have picked their moment because the US is preparing for action against Iraq.

The difficulty that their timing poses for the White House is acute. Either the Administration allows the world's attention to be deflected from Iraq or it must downplay the threat on the Korean peninsula. Since it has taken the latter course it must pretend that a so-far unproven nuclear programme in Iraq is of more concern than the declared intention of North Korea. The contention is plainly absurd and, in its implications, dangerous.

"Rogue states", as President Bush calls them, might easily conclude that for countries off-side with the US it is a great deal better to have a nuclear weapon than to be suspected of developing them. Washington's restrained diplomatic response to North Korea might serve its prior interest in Iraq right now but it is questionable that it serves the wider interest of arresting nuclear proliferation.

The world has become too sanguine about proliferation. With the break-up of the Soviet Union, there seems to be a general resignation to the dispersal of much of its nuclear resources. The possession of nuclear weapons is no longer confined to leading members of the United Nations Security Council. Israel, India and Pakistan also now possess the capability to deliver a holocaust of Hiroshima proportions upon their neighbours. The greatest risk of a nuclear exchange last year was a long way from Iraq; it was in the latest episode of tension between Pakistan and India.

It might take some such calamity for nuclear proliferation to be recognised for the scourge it is. Mr Bush seems concerned about weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands only in so far as they might be passed along to terrorists who are immune to nuclear deterrence. But the risk is greater than that. There are states that cannot be trusted with these weapons and they are not confined to a few that are unfriendly to the US. With concerted effort the Security Council could come down hard on all other states that threaten to develop weapons of mass destruction. If there is the will, they will find the way.