The situation in North Korea is a perfect example of why active engagement with the rest of the world is imperative. It also proves that engagement can be a workable policy, neither aggressively interventionist nor stubbornly isolationist.

North Korea is one of the biggest arms suppliers to the Third World; the nation provided Iraq with its Scud missiles. This past year saw the successful test flight of a new North Korean ballistic missile that would allow Baghdad to hit any target in the Mediterranean and even Southern Europe.

It is no secret that the North Koreans are actively trying to establish a nuclear weapons program, which would threaten to destabilize the balance of power in East Asia. The possibility is so real, in fact, that Clinton visited Japan last summer not only to discuss trade issues, but to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to providing a "nuclear umbrella" for Japan and the other Pacific Rim nations. In February, CIA Director R. James Woolsey testified before the House Armed Services Committee that North Korea is currently one of the most serious threats to American interests.

North Korea has persistently flouted the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection protocols, to which it is bound under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on North Korea, the Pyongyang regime has hinted that it will invade South Korea. North Korea had announced it would withdraw from the NPT, but reconsidered after talks with the U.S.--the first high-level talks between the two countries in decades--had stalled because of that threat. At present, the Clinton Administration is doggedly trying to salvage the negotiations. U.S. negotiators have shown perseverance and restraint, proving that diplomacy can work. They have certainly benefited from the absence of public scrutiny.

In dealing with recalcitrant governments like North Korea and murderous adversaries of the Bosnian ilk, the U.S. needs to back up its diplomacy with a credible threat of force. Credibility is a vital issue, regardless of what that reasoning led us to in Vietnam. Engagement does not automatically lead to armed intervention.

Clinton now uses the credibility argument to justify the continued presence of troops in Somalia--at least until March 31, his self-imposed deadline for withdrawal. But U.S. credibility is undermined by the ambivalence of the American public. Self-imposed deadlines, while reassuring to the electorate, also tell Aidid how much longer he must wait until he is free of American harassment and can resume the brutal status quo ante.

International terrorism is on the rise today, and the bipolar balance of terror has degenerated into a motley bunch of renegade regimes, all pounding on the door of the nuclear club. Just as Americans are growing uncomfortable with our new role as de facto globocop, our share of the burden grows larger. Our allies are passing the buck: Boutros-Ghali has reported that France, Italy, Belgium, Jordan, and Tunisia are considering pulling out of Somalia before the U.S.

As Margaret Thatcher told Bush on the eve of the Gulf War, now is not the time to waver. This time, however, the enemy is not some megalomaniac dictator, but the tyranny of American public opinion.