The ultimate failure of diplomacy

For those sceptical about the justification for a US-led war against Iraq - and surveys across the world suggest they are numerous - this week's testimony by a senior US official concerning North Korea made interesting reading.

'Of course we're going to have direct talks with the North Koreans,' Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a US Congress fearful of a growing nuclear threat. 'There's no question about it.'

Mr Armitage's expression of faith in the power of diplomacy came despite his fresh warnings of North Korea's nuclear programme and its potential to sell material to terrorists or rogue states. Even though he did state that the country's motivation may be economic survival compared to Iraq's desire to 'dominate and intimidate', he nevertheless described North Korea as a potentially worse proliferator of weapons.

The diplomat's comments came as his colleague over at the Pentagon, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, placed 24 long-range bombers on alert, in a clear warning to North Korea to behave during any possible Iraq conflict.

Despite such moves and some predictable accompanying bluster, it is clear that the US wants to a diplomatic solution on the Korean peninsula.

There are obvious strategic reasons for this. North Korea represents a new front at a time when the US is poised to launch a fresh battle in the war on terrorism, a conflict whose principal protagonists - al Qaeda - remain at large. Not even the mighty US would be happy dealing with a three-front conflict.

More importantly, however, the Republican hawks of US President George W Bush's regime seem to have grasped the difficult realities of a region with sweeping ethnic and political diversities. A unilateral Iraq-style conflict to push Kim Jong-il from power is unthinkable: it could invite the gravest of threats to South Korea and Japan, and would likely lead to wider regional instability.