Several months ago, multilateral talks that included South Korea, China, Russia and Japan helped to preserve Kim Jong-Il's political future. The new approach in containing nuclear proliferation is on an unproductive path. Just as we've prolonged Jong-Il's regime, Iran, a country that has at least held some form of elections, has been nearly frozen out by our government. Our actions in North Korea have been detrimental to our ability to convince future rogue leaders that their self-interest lies in choosing policies that don't harm their population (thereby destabilizing the country). By engaging a country that has made no political progress and appears to have no coherent vision other than that of its power-crazed dictator, it is difficult to present the world with a clear vision of what a rogue nuclear state is. Is it one that is on the path to developing weapons or one that already has them (i.e. North Korea)? Is it one with a leader who wants to have very limited diplomatic contact with the United Nations or one that seeks an active voice? Choosing on one hand to engage North Korea and on the other to pressure Iran has not only compromised our plans to control nuclear proliferation but also continues to alienate a country directly involved in the Middle East conflict.

Kim is using the nuclear program in exchange for aid. Not only is it sick to leverage the lives of his own people, but it is an indication that Kim is only interested in political survival. He seems willing to deal with large-scale peace talks when they involve nations agreeing to prop up the failing Korean economy and social system. These talks will result in the removal of the burden of a costly and expensive nuclear program from the backs of the North Korean people, but they would not achieve any sort of progress in terms of human rights. With North Korea's continued obstinance and its inability to meet an April 14 deadline, our government should use Kim's stubborn stance to correct a poor diplomatic move. Instead of continuing to support a leader that intends to do little to better his country, we should give him a taste of the pressure that we've been putting on Iran. It should be made clear that we will deal only with countries that seek to make progress rather than to sustain current levels of instability. Additionally, by conceding so much after North Korea's successful nuclear test, we are demonstrating that we open talks only once the threat is imminent, thereby increasing the incentive for future would-be nuclear states to reach their goals quickly.

Iran is a regional power that, despite the presence of members within the government hostile to the U.S. and a supreme council of conservative Islamic clerics, holds elections and has a multiparty system. While it's a very limited democracy, it, unlike Kim's regime, nonetheless has some room for dissenting opinion and reformers. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's party, favored by the conservative mullahs who hold the final say, was soundly defeated in recent elections because the mullahs noted the popular backlash against the Iranian right. This is a developing country with some form of popular representation and one that must be engaged in order to resolve the crisis in Iraq. It offers the opportunity to establish a positive example of nuclear containment. If anything, their president's recent failures to negotiate have led to his removal at the bargaining table by the mullahs. This is an indication that Iran's government is concerned about slightly more than just retaining power (again, unlike North Korea.) With this in mind, the diplomatic efforts that we are committing to North Korea would make more headway in Iran, a country that is much more important to the stability of the world and the semi-fluid electoral body of which is concerned about appeasing a moderate electorate. Additionally, we have the chance to defuse the situation before a nuclear test occurs, thereby staying true to our plans to control the production of nuclear weapons. Such a claim can't be made of our negotiations with a country that has actually produced a weapon of mass destruction.

While controlling Iran's self-proclaimed peaceful nuclear program is a concern for some, a more pressing concern would be to stabilize the region. Nuclear talks with Iran can morph into even more important discussions on Iran's role as a power in the Middle East. Our current strategy of flying solo in the Middle East has failed, and it has now become apparent that Iran's influence is significant. That being said, it is in our best interest to engage a country that has something to lose. Iran has massive oil production and economic concerns. Reaching out to Iran can not only allow us to make positive headway in international nuclear containment and defuse an enemy of our Israeli ally, but it can also restrain one of the many parties with interests in the Iraqi conflict. North Korea, on the other hand, will use the resources that we have promised to continue a regime that has consistently adopted the most callous attitude imaginable toward human life. It is a diplomatic effort that will result in a black eye for the United States internationally, and one that fails to address the most pressing concerns of our country, the Iraqi conflict. In short, cooperation with North Korea will not provide a proper deterrent for countries considering a nuclear program and will not help the United States confront the immediate security threats.

Rom is a junior living in Coolidge Dormitory. He is a member of the track team and enjoys running around campus at odd hours. E-mail him at rcabeza08@amherst.edu.