New club rules

Contrary to what the recent cacophony of voices would suggest, the global nuclear order was dead long before Pyongyang decided it was time to cross the threshold. It was dead because those countries with nuclear weapons have not shown commitment to move towards disarmament, as they promised in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It was dead because Israel, followed by India and Pakistan also built nuclear arsenals, with some countries watching and others clapping on the sidelines. It was dead because of the existence of a vibrant proliferation network, which involved governments, middlemen and top scientists passing dangerous secrets in an illegal, transnational marketplace. The nuclear order had to die, because it was based on a morally wrong and politically naïve principle: that a few countries could be nuclear powers and bully others based on this strength, while all the rest (including those who were nuclear-capable but decided not to proliferate) had to remain silent spectators.

North Korea is an irresponsible state run by a vainglorious man who inherited his dictatorship, and who has no respect for international law. His nuclear programme and tests must be harshly condemned and sanctions slapped. But the self-righteousness and criticism emanating from the two nuclearised Southasian countries is difficult to digest. Look at the arguments India, responsible for sparking off the nuclear race in the region, made to justify its tests – a discriminatory nuclear order, a hostile security environment, strategic depth. These are precisely the reasons cited by Pyongyang for having gone nuclear. Yet, as New Delhi inches closer to becoming a formal part of the nuclear club, it does not sense the hypocrisy inherent in its being judgemental. Some call it realpolitik, but the truth is starker: the strategic community in India lacks a moral centre.