Editorial: Korea deal welcome, but fragile

Opinion

Understandable scepticism has greeted North Korea's pledge to stop developing nuclear weapons and rejoin international arms treaties. No other reaction is prudent, given the many false dawns orchestrated by Kim Jong-Il's impoverished and diplomatically isolated state. Doubters can point also to the vague wording of much of this agreement, and early signs of fraying. Yet nothing can disguise the fact that this is a welcome breakthrough.

The pact is the fruit of six-party talks that began two years ago. For much of that time, North Korea had few chips to bring to the bargaining table. But that changed in February when it announced it possessed nuclear weapons. This was the first such proclamation by a rogue state, and raised obvious fears about the stability of the Korean Peninsula, and the potential for such weaponry to be supplied to other eccentric states or terrorist organisations.

Pyongyang's statement clearly galvanised the negotiating teams from the United States, Japan, China, Russia and South Korea. Most notably, the Americans, prodded by China, brought a new flexibility to the latest round of talks. Previously, they had refused to countenance North Korea's right to a civilian nuclear energy programme after disarmament. Now they would. Previously, they had said that they would not accept an agreement that contained only a vague set of principles. Now they did. And, previously, they had declined to step outside the six-party framework to talk one-on-one with the North Koreans. This time they did, and the agreement comes close to incorporating the mutual non-aggression pact sought by Pyongyang. Among other things, the US affirmed that it had no nuclear weapons at its bases in South Korea, and no intention of attacking or invading the North.

The US approach probably owes something to its embroilment in Iraq. Given the degree of commitment there, any threats against Pyongyang would possess a hollow ring. But Washington has made it quite clear that its willingness to compromise goes only so far. Already, it is pressuring North Korea to demonstrate its sincerity by shutting down its main nuclear facility.

The US is also insisting that the offer of civilian nuclear energy for North Korea is a "theoretical proposition" dependent on Pyongyang dismantling all its nuclear activities. The North Koreans have responded that they will not give up their nuclear weapons until they are given light-water reactors. Clearly, difficult phasing-in issues remain to be tackled at the next round of six-party talks in November.

For now, however, the agreement is a noteworthy success. If nothing else, it is a welcome reversal of what had become a seemingly resigned drift towards nuclear proliferation. Only a few days ago, the United Nations summit in New York failed miserably to address the issue. At the same time, Iran is continuing to defy the international community by pursuing its nuclear programmes.

Proliferation should, in fact, never be far from the forefront of world attention. The danger is not one that can be ignored. The hammering out of the agreement with North Korea is, finally, a step in the right direction. One of the world's more dangerous flashpoints will be neutralised if Pyongyang can be shepherded back into the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Words are still to be translated into action, but so far this has been a strong advertisement for a non-confrontational approach. The same arduous policy needs to be adopted against all states that threaten to develop weapons of mass destruction.