“How seriously should we take North Korea’s threats?” asks Peter Foster in The Daily Telegraph. Not only has North Korea recently been firing off ballistic missiles, it has now threatened to attack the South if any of its ships are searched for weapons of mass destruction under the US ‘anti-proliferation’ regime.
“A repeat of the naval skirmishes that took place off the coast in 1999 and 2002” looks possible. “However, analysts say that with two million soldiers massed on the peninsular, with both sides having nuclear weapons and with US security guarantees to South Korea, neither side is looking for war.”
Maybe not, but “diplomatic aftershocks from North Korea’s latest nuclear test are jangling nerves and changing policies”, says Blaine Harden in the Washington Post. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Takeo Kawamura, has called on North Korea to “refrain from taking actions that would elevate tensions in Asia.”
Yet while US President Obama has called the latest test “a blatant violation of international law”, Mike Shuster of NPR reckons that despite the “tough talk, options to pressure North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons development are limited”.
“So what else can the world do to bring to heel the world’s newest and most alarming nuclear power?” ask The Times’ Richard Lloyd Parry and Jane Macartney. “Two coercive options remain: indirect sanctions and direct diplomatic arm twisting.” The first has been tried, but “it’s hard to isolate and bankrupt a country which loves independence and went bust years ago”.
As for pressure from North Korea’s friends, only China could fit the description”. Beijing’s condemnation of the nuclear test contained some of the strongest language ever used against an ally once described as being ‘as close as lips and teeth’. “But whether this will translate into concrete action is still unclear. There are no good solutions; for now a sushi and beef ban may be the best the world can muster.”