Swirl of diplomacy around North Korea

North Korea balks at that. Western experts think it has one or two nukes. Their use is clearly to deter aggression. Whether a few nukes will do so is debatable. However, a certain amount of deterrence does attach to atomic weapons. If extrapolated, the Indo-Pakistan experience of 2002 crisis would suggest the nukes are useless.

How and when can North Korea rationally use its weapon(s)? Either in anticipation of an American-led invasion or during a conventional war when things look bleak to Pyongyang. Supposing, choosing a target poses no problem to North Koreans, what happens after Pyongyang has spent its atomic arsenal? Would not the US take out all major towns in North Korea in retaliation, if not preemptively? All concerned will then have ample time to ponder over the point of it all.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The idea of using nuclear or other Weapons of Mass Destruction to strengthen national security is jejune. These weapons cannot be used in real life, especially between the US and a third world country. Riposte in kind makes the use of any WMDs unthinkable and pointless for all.

For now, US has shown some flexibility, on Chinese advice, by reiterating directly to North Korea that it recognises its sovereignty and will not invade it. It remains uncertain whether Pyongyang will return to the Six-Nation Conference as a result. Instead, it insists on proper bilateral negotiations with US. An earlier report had suggested that North Korea wanted China to arrange a visit by US Secretary of State to North Korea. The report was denied. However, that does not signify: it is a long-standing North Korean demand presumably to have a treaty with America, guaranteeing its security; for it, the six-party Conference is pointless.

Some facts remain relevant. North Korea has amply indicated that it would give up the nuclear option if (a) its security was guaranteed by the US; and (b) the US should reinstate something like the early 1990s' arrangements of fuel and food supplies. But a new factor is that it may be unwilling to give up its nukes programme.

Point is North Koreans have deliberately defied the US and are standing firm, ready to fight if necessary. This self-confidence arises from the fact that they are not a pushover. The Americans couldn't have forgotten the 1950s War with North Korea. They would not be in a hurry to fight it again. This is basis enough for a deal between North Korea and US, with South Korea, Japan and Australia allies also signing the parchment. The format for talks is not significant, while preserving peace is.

North Koreans naturally keep a wary eye on what is happening around the Korean peninsula. The South Koreans certainly have a relatively softer policy towards its Northern neighbour. The line up over North Korea is like this: on one side is the America-led alignment comprising South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and may be Indonesia later. In this line up the Indians, the new strategic partners of the US, are not involved. The only powers friendly to North Korea are China and Russia -- for strategic reasons. Out of the pro-American bloc, South Korea has sometimes acted almost like China. Still the South remains one of America's reliable friends and is fully meshed with the American defensive systems, although its public opinion is solidly for unification with the North and is wary of America.

It may be an aside, but no overview of Asia can fail to take account of what India is going to do. It is as yet a largely non-aligned nation, though the US is wooing it strenuously and has promised to help it become a global Major Power. Already Indian and American Navies are jointly patrolling Far Eastern waters and in Proliferation Security Initiative. The question is: would India continue its traditional non-alignment in Asia on substantive matters or its new found love for America will become the fulcrum of new policies. Anyway, for America's Asian policy, the question of India's final choice would be a matter of great interest, and also to North Korea, China and Russia.

North Koreans ask simple questions. Do the Americans have God's mandate to ensure that nobody can fabricate atomic weapons except the US or those the US permits? It looks ridiculous to North Koreans that the possessors of world's largest arsenal of nuclear WMDs should show such repugnance to these WMDs in non-friendly states. The WMDs are good for US to have but bad in the hands of North Koreans. Here are two moralities: one for America and another for lesser fry.

Americans have many and varied purposes, of course. They accept Israel's right to have a big nuclear arsenal. They want no other ME state to acquire it. The world has noticed the aggressive conduct of Israel; it never tires of invoking the Holocaust and centuries of racial oppression on Jews. Yes, they were wronged by Europeans and even Americans, not Arabs or Muslims. In Muslim kingdoms, they used to prosper. But look at what are the Israelis doing to Palestinians. Are they not actually visiting race-based oppression on Palestinian Arabs? Why should, by agreeing to American demands, Iran and North Korea contribute to the promotion of America's objectives?

Central US objective in Asia is establishing a new imperial system that will extend over much of Eurasia -- may be eventually displacing the Russian control over many of its ethnically distinct regional units. That is one side: The other is the American aim of containing the rising power of China. The US has seized upon the supposition of China's continued aggressive hostility toward Taiwan. It is therefore strengthening what is in intent an anti-Chinese alliance with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and any SE Asian states that may sign up.

Third, the US wants to control oil and other strategic raw material from the source to processing facilities including their transportation and marketing through American MNCs. Former Soviet Central Asian republics are already being integrated into this new imperial system. Who, except those who love the new US power system, can countenance promoting US foreign policy?

It is hard geo-strategic designs of control and hegemony that drive the US foreign policy. The ultimate American aim is not old-style land grab or cornering of spheres of influence to sell home-produced goods. It is worldwide control to enable large American corporations to make investments -- and profits -- in mega projects of key raw material, infrastructure, transportation and modernisation of the armed forces. America's military power and its political influence now seek to keep all its private capital -- clearly surplus to purely American needs -- profitable. Only those who are smaller shareholders or camp followers can support the larger American purposes.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.