Korean Conundrum.(ISSUES & INSIGHTS)(EDITORIALS)(Editorial)

Diplomacy: Well, that was quick. Last Tuesday negotiators resumed "six-party talks" on North Korea's standing as a rogue, nuke-possessing nation. By Wednesday Pyongyang formally rejected the principal U.S. proposal.

The rejection came as no surprise, given the quicksilver temperament of the Stalinist regime's leader, Kim Jong Il. What Washington wanted, after all, was a scheduled dismantling of his nuclear program in return for aid and security assurances.

Kim has long aspired to membership in the world's nuclear club, even announcing last February -- to the consternation of regional leaders -- that he could deploy nuclear-tipped missiles. And, yes, he threatened North American cities.

The situation's desperate volatility -- North Koreans have been suffering a protracted famine -- obviously demands attention. Critics of President Bush, who after 9-11 tied North Korea to the "axis of evil" (including Iraq and Iran), have suggested Kim menaces the peace even more than Saddam Hussein did.

Whatever the magnitude of the threat, U.S. strategists can't afford to take their eyes off it. In last year's presidential campaign, Democratic candidate John Kerry complained about the slow progress of the multilateral approach -- odd, considering that he also, and incorrectly, lambasted Bush for pursuing a "unilateral" course in Iraq.

Kerry forgot that the six parties -- the U.S. and North Korea, plus South Korea, China, Russia and Japan -- each held a stake in Pyongyang's stability. The State Department rightly hoped that China especially could lean on the feisty dictator next door.

Progress has been mixed. And North Korea claims a more formidable capability than when the talks started.