Deinonychus antirrhopus

In the South Korean case, this is even more pathetic.

In 1991, after the North Korean nuclear program had been revealed and Kim Il-Sung (current Kim's dad) threatened to withdraw from the NPT, North and South Korea signed the North-South Agreement. Under that agreement (which remains in force), North (and South) Korea each committed to abandon all nuclear weapons development programs. (One reason why the '94 Agreed Framework didn't have to cover HEU programs---they were banned under both the '89 NPT and the '91 N-S Agreement.)

Under those terms, the South would provide some assistance, and both sides would open up their borders, engage in talks, etc., etc., etc. You know the drill. Three years later? No trade, no opening of links, etc., and further nuke weapons development efforts. (The reprocessing that the North tried to hide at the time violated this agreement.)

Not to be deterred, South Korea, under Kim Dae-jung, then began the "Sunshine" policy of further funding the North to buy good behavior. This apparently has included direct payoffs of Kim Jong-il by Kim DJ's party.

Worked well, hasn't it?

But President Roh (current one, not the previous one) is committed to showing that the North isn't a threat (or doesn't have to be). So, he'll make sure that there's an agreement w/ the North, if it costs a billion won and a few thousand lives.

And he'll be cheered on by the younger generation of Koreans who believe that "Koreans will not kill Koreans."

None so blind, etc., etc.

denuclearizing (is that even a word?)

I don't know if it's a word, but I like it. I'd suggest holding off using it your next Scrabble game until you're sure.

Last I looked into it, the Chinese constitute a Communist dictatorship, and yet, from all sides, there is a determination to have a 'constructive engagement' with them, and both carrots and sticks available for that project.

Commerce, information technologies, increased cultural exchanges, etc., with China are said to offer the prospect of democratization of that society in the long run.

If this is not the approach to use with N. Korea, why not, and what is the alternative, exactly?

Sofla:

On the presumption that that is a genuine question, here's a thumbnail background as to why the PRC is not the same as North Korea.

1. China changed its policies internally (i.e., saw that its current policies were a bad idea). See any biography of the rise of Deng Xiaoping.

North Korea? Nope.

2. China changed its fundamental internal policies (especially economic ones). To call China today "Communist" is simplistic, at best, inaccurate in the main. Where is the state ownership of the commanding heights of industry? Where is the cult of personality? The Chinese are trying to shed state-owned enterprises, not preserve them. The ones they still have are the ones they can't get rid of (no buyers, crappy products).

'Course, they started by privatizing land--something the USSR never did (and Russia is still trying to figure out how to do).

North Korea? Nope, nope.

3. China did not consistently cheat on its international obligations. China has a pretty strong international credit rating (it actually doesn't borrow that much). It certainly hasn't defaulted on loans. That's economic credibility.

China has a mixed record of abiding by international treaties and agreements. Case-by-case would suggest that it abides by some, doesn't by others. M-9 and M-11 sales to Pakistan remain murky.

North Korea? Worse, from all accounts. Economic, political, even law enforcement. (Chinese diplomats haven't been expelled for selling meth.)

4. China didn't just get all the goodies you're referring to. Look at how long it took for foreign investment to begin. You think they were investing like this in Mao's China (arguably the closest approach to Kim Il-Sung)? Hah!

China earned foreign investment, by making it clear that it would make efforts to facilitate foreign investment, offering tax breaks, setting up special economic zones, etc.

North Korea? Their one effort in the north is truly pathetic. Google Hyundai's money-losing efforts in NK.

5. China cut back on its threatening posture. Hard to realize these days, but from 1978-1989, China cut its military, its defense budget, stopped rattling sabers at Taiwan, made nice w/ the US, etc., etc., etc. Try Googling "Four Modernizations," and see what happened in terms of allocation of resources.

North Korea? Most militarized state around, seizes food aid for military purposes, keeps a huge percentage of its males in the military. Yeah, that's comparable.

But, hey, OTHER than that, they're just the same.

Well, the ensuing 30 years of evolution in China from the time of Nixon's raproachment have indeed seen fruitful changes there, but what was happening when it was engaged? The Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward? Then, or proximately prior. THOSE twisted totalitarian communist cult of personality programmes (in this case, Mao's wife, prominently, in the Gang of Four) did not suggest the later reforms we now know were possible, since they transpired.

Don't telescope 30 years after Nixon's insight into what China faced us with at the time.

Okay, let's try this again:

1. When the US and the PRC approached each other, it was in response to a strategic situation called the Cold War , where both the US and the PRC saw a greater threat against each other (called the USSR).

What threat brings North Korea and the US together, sufficiently to justify a major change like that?

2. When the US and the PRC first openly talked to each other (1972), there was a distinct Chinese effort to gain US support. This included ratcheting down the level of tension with Taiwan.

What has North Korea done to lower the level of threat posed against South Korea?

3. Despite the establishment of links in 1972, it was not until actual formal relations in 1979 that the US even thought about formally investing in the PRC.

Even then, it required Deng Xiaoping to implement enormous changes (known as the "Four MOdernizations"), involving reallocating defense spending, privatizing land, opening up light industry, establishing special economic zones, and making special tax policies IN those SEZs to entice foreign investment.

What has North Korea done in any of these regards?

Now, apparently, according to Sofla, we knew all this was going to happen, so we invested in 1972. Except we didn't invest, we waited 'til after '79 (really, after '83) to invest.

But what about the Great Leap Forward (which was 1957) and the GAng of Four (you must be quite the China scholar, I don't think ANY China analyst has ever claimed that Jiang Qing had her own, separate cult of personality)?

What about them? We DIDN'T open relations with the PRC at that time. (Notice it took to '79 to formally open relations. Jiang Qing had fallen by the fall of 1976.) Had Jiang somehow eclipsed Deng, given her policies, there is no chance we'd have had relations with her, in no small part because she didn't want relations with us. In fact, she probably would have acted the way Kim Jong-il does now.

So, let's review:

China changes course. As it changes course, in concrete ways, and in light of larger strategic issues that suggest improved relations would benefit both sides with regards to the same external threat, the US and the PRC first establish links, then establish relations.

As the PRC then lays out incentives, including domestic changes, foreign investment (from the US, among others) then occurs. As China shows a consistent track record of allowing and encouraging foreign investment (like paying its bills), more investment happens.

This, of course, leaves out the issue of the huge market, you know the billion-plus people in China.

North Korea, lessee:

Hasn't changed policy.
Makes more threats, on a regular basis.
Makes no reforms internally to suggest prospects for change.
Defaults on loans and debts.
Has no market.
Offers no strategic alliance against a greater threat.

Okay, Sofla, I'm flummoxed. WHAT is your point again?

N. Korea's likely course as the world's leading proliferator of nuclear weapons makes them a grave danger to US national security in the short term. Stemming this danger short of the deaths of millions on the Korean peninsula, including 35,000 US military personnel, is a practical necessity.

As it happens, N. Korea's interest in proliferating weapons and nuclear technologies is driven by their bankrupt economy, and the widespread starvation of its people, forcing them to look for ways to earn hard currency. If that driving motive can be blunted by economic aid, and general war avoided, that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

For, what is the alternative, given an interest to both stop the proliferation and avoid a general conflict?

If the historical comparison to the opening to China is too flawed in your opinion, how about Nixon's detente policy with the Soviet Union? If they exhibited some turnaround from their world-wide confrontation in the third world countries, thus deserving Nixon's solicitude, I don't know what it was. (Certain that you'll point it out to me if it existed).

"Too flawed in my opinion"?

Frankly, sofla, your insistence on comparing China with North Korea strikes me as parallel to comparing Bush to Hitler, i.e., unworthy of much discussion.

That you should somehow conclude that this is my own opinion leaves me utterly unwilling to waste time on you (further reinforced by your comments above on little things like what "non-partisan" means)---I think an evening playing with my dog or ironing my underwear would be more productive.

If you'd really like to engage on this topic, tell ya what: Why don't you tell me exactly what you would have North Korea do that would be verifiable, and not simply a matter of "Thank you, Uncle Sam, now gimme more." And before you offer up a basket of goodies and concessions with the codicil that "and if they violate this agreement, then it's reaaaallllly time to make it clear we mean business," please tell me how that should differ from the '89, '91, and '94 agreements.