North Korea solidified its place as the world’s foremost pariah with its nuclear test on Oct. 9. Unlike other pariahs, such as Zimbabwe or Myanmar, the world ignores Kim Jong Il’s regime at its own peril, which is precisely why the swift and complete condemnation from the international community was spot on. Even China and Russia, reluctantly punitive in the past, chimed in, describing the test as “brazen” and “unacceptable,” and urging (mild) retaliatory measures.

However, it is easy for China to react in an acceptable and expeditious manner to a nuclear test; there is not much variety or wiggle room in the possible responses. The challenge is creating and maintaining a consistent and effective policy that encourages non-proliferation without pushing North Korea away. This is a delicate balancing act made nearly impossible by Kim’s unpredictable regime. So, many have begun to phrase the question as thus: push for regime change and risk a collapse of the regime or allow North Korea to muddle its way further and further into infamy and tacitly accept its nuclear capability. This posits a false choice, however, as neither is desirable and other avenues remain open.

China is by far North Korea’s most vital ally. Besides investing billions of dollars in North Korea, chiefly in the form of mineral extraction, it has wielded its considerable influence on the Security Council to protect North Korea from any punitive repercussions resulting from its actions. China also supplies massive amounts of food aid to the North, without which millions of North Koreans would starve. Not that Kim would care; witness his callous ignorance of the famine in the 1990’s in which three million people starved to death. China, which shares an 870 mile border with North Korea, does not want millions of people flooding over the border fleeing disaster and possibly civil war. This would further destabilize an area of China already suffering from massive unemployment and ethic unrest and create nightmarish refugee problems.

On the other hand, though, in its new role as emerging power, China must appear to be concerned about the same issues as other major powers, chief among them nuclear proliferation. The scrutiny is further magnified precisely because of its geographical proximity and the fact that it is so friendly with the North. This means that it must take some steps toward condemning its neighbor’s actions and working with other powers to address the situation. These powers, chiefly the United States, Japan and Europe, want China to lean harder on the regime, but as aforementioned China is reluctant to do so.

Therefore, China is on a razor’s edge and either of the choices proposed in the beginning would be disastrous. Regime collapse is never a simple or preferred method of bringing about change, yet tacitly consenting to the North’s nuclear capability is equally unattractive and sets a dangerous precedent for aspiring nuclear nations. Clearly a third way must be found. Engagement has failed, as shown by South Korea’s abandonment of its “sunshine policy” wherein the South would aid and engage the North regardless of the North’s responses. However, military action is clearly not an option, even as a last resort because it is, in practice, impossible.

This calls for something fundamentally different. China will never agree to regime change on the peninsula but it also cannot afford to continue protecting Kim. The sanctions agreed upon by the Security Council on Oct. 14 fall under Chapter 7 of the UN charter; this makes compliance mandatory for all member nations. This is the right course of action in the short term, but China should not just follow the mandatory strictures. Additionally, the resolution that passed allows all nations to stop and inspect all cargo ships. According to The Economist, “China’s statement that it will not participate in the inspection of goods bound for North Korea leaves the door wide open to sanctions busting. Most North Korean imports come across the Chinese border. And South Korea has said that it will continue two investment schemes with its northern neighbor.” The Chinese, then, as well as the South Koreans, should participate in any additional measures to contain the rogue regime. As it stands, they are not doing enough to make Kim feel the pressure.

On the other side of the same coin, the United States and Japan, the two most hard-line members of the failed six-party talks, should not corner North Korea or China. Kim stated that the reason why he undertook the nuclear test as well as a ballistic missile test earlier this year was because the U.S. was “threatening” his regime. While most of that justification is certainly hyperbole, the pressure exerted by the U.S. and Japan might have given Kim the impression that he was being cornered, and after two wars with the aim of “regime change,” the U.S. was certainly threatening.

The final verdict is to pressure the North using sanctions and other such punitive measures but that the international community must also provide a diplomatic escape route. It has worked in the past as seen with Libya. This watershed moment cannot be allowed to pass, however, without a substantive and consistent response, unlike what occurred after India and Pakistan’s nuclear tests in the 1990s. Otherwise, one more regime is allowed to break the rules, encouraging many others to follow.

John is a first-year accounting, international studies and Chinese triple major. He can be reached at [email protected].