NORTH Korea's favoured method of diplomacy is blackmail; it has threatened the mass starvation of its own populace if its enemies did not provide food, and now it has returned to its old habits of nuclear brinkmanship. With a regime as unstable as that of Kim Jong II, yesterday's threats to reverse an agreement about safe disposal of nuclear material cannot be ignored. By announcing that it would reactivate nuclear materials that it had agreed to store, North Korea has reminded the region that its least tractable problem has not gone away. By now at least, no-one expects the malevolently eccentric regime in Pyongyang to stick by its agreements. It signed one of these in 1994; to cease its dubiously peaceful nuclear activities in return for a jointly supervised power generating capacity and supplies of oil from South Koreans and the US. These supplies, North Korea now argues, have not been
provided to its satisfaction. Like his father Kim II Sung, the ''Dear Leader'' is playing on fears of what a desperate and isolated regime might do with the products of its own aged nuclear infrastructure.
As always, the problem for North Korea's neighbours and the US, is how to manage a regime in terminal decline. Even without the nuclear card, the consequences of a sudden and complete collapse could be disastrous; civil war and a tide of starving refugees creating a humanitarian disaster to equal any this century. Despite behaviour well-exemplified by this latest gamble, the region has had no option but to bend to the bluster of what the US has designated a ''terrorist regime''. In the past, those opposed to this bizarre dictatorship have had to observe powerlessly the grievous sufferings of a populace stuffed with propaganda but starved essentials. The failure of North Korea to take seriously peace talks with the South earlier this year, and now with this threat to renege on a painfully-won nuclear agreement suggests that it may be time that the waiting game was replaced with a more proactive
approach.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article