Editorial: North Korea talks crucial to curbing threat

Since the destruction of the World Trade Centre, terrorism has pushed the peril posed by nuclear proliferation into the background. But the danger has not diminished, a fact reinforced by North Korea's launching of a rocket, which may have been a long-range missile test. Indeed, terrorism, aided and abetted by rogue states, has delivered a sharper edge to fears about the spread of nuclear weapons.

As long as nuclear activity remains unregulated, the threat of a terrorist organisation acquiring nuclear arms is ever-present. In that context, President Barack Obama's focus on nuclear weaponry is especially welcome.

There is virtually no chance that his ultimate ambition - the eradication of such arms - will bear fruit. Even the President conceded it would not happen in his lifetime. And he knows that, while the United States may have a moral responsibility to lead because it is the only nation to have used atomic bombs in warfare, many Americans would accuse him of naivety if this meant undermining their country's military power. That is why President Obama's speech in Prague also mentioned that the US would not unilaterally give up nuclear weapons, and that it would proceed with a missile defence system in Europe so long as Iran pursued nuclear arms.

That is not to say there is no substance to the President's initiative. Already, at the G20 summit, he and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, had agreed to discuss further cuts to their own arsenals. This will accompany a greater commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which the US, Britain, France, Russia and China agreed to progressively reduce their weapon stockpiles in exchange for other countries not developing nuclear arms. President

Obama proposes providing more resources and authority for international inspections, and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty. Further details on this will, hopefully, emerge from an international summit on nuclear security that he plans to convene this year.

More concretely, the President has pledged that the US will ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which forbids nuclear explosions in peacetime. The Senate's rejection of this treaty in 1999 was one of the great setbacks of Bill Clinton's presidency. More than 140 nations have ratified it, but 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to sign and ratify it before it can take effect.

Only 35 have done so. As well as the US, the holdouts are China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. Final ratification by the Democrat-controlled Senate would give President Obama a moral authority to pursue his agenda.

Persuading the likes of North Korea to surrender their nuclear aspirations will clearly be difficult. The President has told Pyongyang that "the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons". But North Korea knows a nuclear capability is its trump card in dealings with the West. For years, it has promised to abandon its nuclear ambitions in exchange for food, then exercised that threat when it did not get its way. Most of all, it wants direct talks with Washington, rather than the current six-nation negotiations.

That must happen if a major part of the potential nuclear-terrorism link is to be defused. The likes of North Korea have to be part of any improved regulatory framework governing nuclear activity. Talking to Pyongyang will certainly not be a case of President Obama being soft because, as he noted in Prague, there is an increased risk of a nuclear attack. It would simply be the most prudent means of reducing a very real threat.