The news of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il’s death has been received with much speculation with questions related to the nature of political transition in this isolated country, their future foreign policy and the inside situation. Most importantly, the international community is watching closely the nation’s nuclear policy with raised eyebrows asking, “Who controls the Nukes?”

North Korea signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1985, but announced its withdrawal in 2003. Subsequently, it has been known to have conducted two nuclear tests. The first test was on October 9, 2006 and the second one was on May 25, 2009 after which North Korea claimed to have attained a fully-fledged nuclear status.

Apart from the serious concerns in the international community around what would be North Korea’s next steps, the news of Kim Jong Il's death has been received with uncertainty amongst major nations on how to respond to this occasion. The question being raised is: What should be the appropriate “official” response? Or, in fact, should there be any response at all?

The United States and its close allies in this case, South Korea and Japan, have not yet used what is being referred to as the ‘C’ word in political circles, ‘C’ of course implying ‘condolences’. The US’s immediate response was a statement issued by the White House that it is in “close touch” with its allies in South Korea and Japan and was monitoring the situation closely. While South Korea expressed “sympathy” with the people of North Korea there has been no official statement.

President Obama is stated to have spoken with South Korean president Lee Myung-bak reaffirming Washington's commitment to stability in the region. It was only a day later that US secretary of state Hillary Clinton issued a more refined yet ‘politically correct’ statement urging North Korea's new leadership to embrace “the path of peace”, thus focusing more on the people rather than its leadership, when she stated, “We are deeply concerned with the well-being of the North Korean people and our thoughts and prayers are with them during these difficult times.”
While South Korean military has been placed on an emergency alert, with increased aerial surveillance along the North Korean border, Japan has been following a wait-and-watch approach to formulate an official response, if any, to the North Korean leader's death.

Though there was an ‘expression’ of condolence at a press conference, the intention was soon clarified and corrected as more of a ‘personal statement’ rather than official. China, a close partner of North Korea, offered its condolences to the North Korean people, and so did Russia. Being a new emerging global player, India’s response was much awaited and two days later, after much thought, prime minister Manmohan Singh conveyed his condolences to the family of the deceased leader, as well as, the people and government of North Korea.

This confusion over what might be an appropriate response is explainable once we understand the possible consequences of this decision. Indeed, it can be a tricky situation because any response or no response at all, both can fuel the current situation whether in the Korean peninsula or within the country that is issuing the statement and finally in the international arena, affecting a country’s relation with other important nations. Alternately, no response at all can further neglect the already isolated region, pushing it further into its cocoon making it a situation of ‘one against all’. This is not the message that world powers want to give to the ‘people of North Korea’ at least, if not its leadership.

Hopefully, major nations and North Korea itself will realise the need to initiate dialogue with a genuine intention to do so for the ‘people’ and not the fear of the red button or the ‘passive blackmailing’ around the nukes that has allowed North Korea to remain indifferent to outside pressure. That there will be young leadership in North Korea is certain, but what direction it will take is not. Either way, sanctions alone cannot bring peace and the current scenario is an example of this. It is the lack of information and closed doors that is worrying the world more as one US official who follows the region closely stated, “It is scary how little we know.”

Hopefully, world leaders are able to pursue the path of effective dialogue and communication with the new leadership emerging there and the process enables the people of North Korea to determine their own destiny as they desire, and not one that is written and accepted between nation leaders by way of treaties, absent of the voice and choice of its people.