Our policy toward North Korea is, to put it plainly, insane. The left likes to pretend the "six party framework" is the triumph of cooperation over "cowboy diplomacy", but unless your goal is to perpetuate a terror state, prolong the oppression and torment of the North Korean people and continue allowing North Korea to grow as a threat to world peace, it is hardly a practical plan.

The plan grew out of three concerns. First, that North Korea would develop nuclear weapons, and then provide them to terrorists (along with a lesser concern about providing other arms to rogue states). Second, the worry that starvation in North Korea may force them into some desperate measure, such as invasion of the south. Third, that starvation might force them to ally with China.

By these measures, our plan was a disaster, and our continued support of North Korea is self-defeating in the extreme. Not to mention that there were more simple solutions available, that would not have involved us in propping up a tyrant who kills and terrorizes his own people.

First, let us look at the fear of nuclear weapons. Having supported North Korea, did they stop developing nuclear weapons? No. Did they stop arming other nations? No. In fact, because we have provided for their food and energy needs, they now have more resources to dedicate to the military and so progressed much faster. Nothing we did stopped them or even slowed them down. If anything, by propping up the regime we have perpetuated the worry and allowed them to become a bigger threat. And now, used to blackmailing other nations into supporting them, they are even more likely to use threats in the future to get what they want.

The obvious solution was a twofold approach. First, to simply allow them to starve. harsh as that sounds, it is no worse than what happens now. North Korea still starves dissidents and political rivals, so it is not as if we have stopped starvation, we have only provided provisions for the military and luxuries for the party faithful, in other words given them enough to stave off revolt in the military. Had we done nothing, odds are very good the perpetual shortages would have prompted revolt at some point, or, if not, at least so crippled the economy they would be delayed in their research.

The second part of the solution would have been a clear statement that any continued nuclear research would result in attack. Now, many worry that China or Russia would oppose any threats, but there is a simple solution to that as well. The promise of a nuclear Japan and Taiwan could very quickly turn China from a rival into a happy collaborator in stopping North Korean nuclear ambitions. And the missile shield in eastern Europe, as well as Georgian NATO membership could have done the same to Russia, had we not abandoned those nations at the start of the Obama (and end of the Bush) administrations. It is depressing that both liberals and conservatives of the 40's and 50's would have seen that as perfectly reasonable, while modern liberals find it unthinkable. Since when did it become unthinkable to pursue national interest?

As far as the second fear, invasion of the south, I think the answers already given show how implausible that is. If the North lacked both food and energy, what good would its much mentioned million man army do? A million starving men advancing on foot are not a threat, they are instant POWs. Ask the Russians in World War I how much numbers matter when you lack supplies. Had we not propped up North Korea, in their diminished state they were hardly a threat to the region, except maybe as a source  of refugees.

Finally, there is the fear of North Korea going over to China. Not that North Korea was ever our ally anyway. Still, this is one of those bits of Cold War thinking I never understood, as I described in "Looking at Foreign Aid" and "Foreign Policy". If a nation is so weak and feeble that it needs aid to feed its people, who cares what nation is its ally? It is a drain, not a boon. Why would we care if China had to spend money funding them? They would gain no advantage from such a pathetic ally, they would suffer a net loss. Let North Korea become a Chinese client, it would be their loss, not ours.

As you can see, we could have not only achieved what we did with much less cost, but actually achieve better results without the huge aid we sent to a hostile nation. So, why did we do it?

I suppose the answer is "world opinion". But if "world opinion" depends on us propping up enemies, playing the sucker and spending money to be repeated slapped in the face by hostile nations, what good is "world opinion"? What do we gain by being loved if the only reason we are loved is because we are such a sucker? If we have to be the kid who gives away all his toys to buy friends, are we really respected? Or are they just stringing us along to see what they can get before abandoning us when we have nothing left?

It seems to me our current foreign policy (during both Democrat and Republican administrations) tends to favor the latter, and that seems a very bad approach.