It should happen, but it probably won’t. While Democrats whined about human rights in China for years and years, the Republicans and eventually Clinton decided that the U.S. shouldn’t go through an annual debate over human rights in China every time Most-Favored Nation status was up for renewal.

Dollars are a greater draw than human rights. The Americans’ primary focus on North Korea will be economic, not humanitarian, just like it appears to be with the South Koreans’.

However, that does not mean that engagement is not the answer or even the solution. Opening up North Korea economically and politically will lead to a loosening of Pyongyang’s grip on its people, as the law of unintended consequences seeps in. Isolation means that Pyongyang controls all and for all courses of action in every aspect of North Koreans’ lives there is usually no other option than Pyongyang’s way.

There is an article in the NY Times with answers from Mr. Kristoff and Mr. Pritchard on North Korea here.

It now looks in the last few days like we’re going to be “nice” to the Dear Leader (calling him “Mr.”, no more axis of evil, etc etc). All of this could have been done starting back in 2001 (instead of reverting to a pre-1992 posture, as the administration (over the objection of Powell) did by default).

The key is the ROK and how the ROK’s posture toward the North has fundamentally changed (IM0). Since ROK is determined to engage with the North no matter what, we should simply do the same (except ROK should be the ones to “take the lead” and assume all the risk).

The place to put “pressure” is on the arrogant government and citizens of the ROK and their refusal to acknowledge the gross human rights abuses inflicted on their northern cousins. Yangban has a current posting echoing the position of the Heritage foundation, arguing that focused “engagement” with the north while simultaneously pressuring them on human rights is a perfectly viable strategy. Couldn’t agree more.
http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyi.....ge_fo.html

let the conspiracy theorists discuss!!

for a long time we’ve questioned that decision to drop the clinton admin’s engagement plan, for all the reasons we’re all familiar with. those “credientials” you write about stem from his “hardline” stance, if i can call it that.

bottom line: if his team succeeds (we’re so far away from that but only an asshole would hope that his team fails to validate their beliefs) then you just have to give credit where credit is due.