Soldiers patrol the site of the 1998 Pokhran nuclear test. (AFP file picture)

On board Air India One, Oct. 9: India has condemned the nuclear test by North Korea for violation of its international obligations while underlining the clandestine route of its nuclear weapons technology.

Describing the North Korean nuclear test as “unfortunate” and violative of its “international commitments”, India claimed that this would “jeopardise peace, stability and security in the Korean peninsula and the region”.

Without naming the North Korean bomb’s black-market route through Pakistan, India pointed out that the test “highlights the dangers of clandestine proliferation”.

Indian diplomacy went into high gear immediately after the test was announced with telephone lines crackling between New Delhi, Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul and other important capitals around the world early in the morning.

Besides its promotion of terrorism, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on his way to London, is now also expected to discuss Pakistan’s role in nuclear proliferation with his British counterpart.

New Delhi’s big worry is the fallout on the India-US nuclear deal of the worsening international climate because of the test. The deal may get seriously compromised now.

There would be greater pressure in the US to binding India bilaterally to no further nuclear tests instead of only a voluntary moratorium. To satisfy critics, tough language on testing may have to be incorporated in the US laws allowing such cooperation.

Reactions of highly-placed officials suggested that India’s attempt in the coming days would be to get the world to focus on the clandestine nature of the North Korean bomb; and to show that there was no parallel between Indian tests of 1998 and the North Korean test today.

“What bothers us is the Pakistan link in the test. We are concerned about what the international community will do about this clandestine link,” a source said.

Rubbishing any comparison between North Korea and India, the official said: “India’s case is different. We were legitimate and transparent. Our nuclear option was open. There was no clandestine proliferation activity. We did not violate any safeguards agreement. It is an insult to compare India with North Korea.”

Besides the black-market route of its bomb, New Delhi is also emphasising the violation of international safeguards agreements by North Korea.

Indian officials point out that North Korea’s responsibility under the safeguards agreements singed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stand despite its claim of withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003.

Pyongyang had first given a notice to quit the NPT in June 1993 under Article 10 of the treaty, which allows citing “supreme” national interest. The withdrawing state has to give a three-month notice to all member countries and the UN Security Council, including a statement of the “extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardised its supreme interests”.

However, the Bill Clinton administration had persuaded Pyongyang to enter into an arrangement whereby for giving up its weapons-related activities, its energy requirements were to be met through transfer of light-water nuclear reactors and oil imports.

Pyongyang had then suspended its withdrawal from the NPT. But that arrangement was terminated in late 2002. In January 2003, with one day’s notice, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT. In 2004, it terminated all agreements with the IAEA.

Indian officials believe that none of this affects the safeguards agreements, which were in perpetuity. “They have converted their safeguarded material into un-safeguarded material. That they stopped safeguards inspections is also a breach,” a senior official said.

“When they were engaged in the Six Nation Dialogue (the two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia and the US), they were not expected to do this,” he said. The dialogue, incidentally, has not taken place for over six months.

To say that Pyongyang’s nuclear test has thrown all equations in East Asia in turmoil would be an understatement. “There is a big question about what Japan, South Korea, China and the US would do in the face of this action. Will Japan be prompted to go nuclear? What will this do to the delicate balance in the region? The politics of the situation will become clear in a couple of days,” the official said.