It Makes a Difference to the Sheep

SIGNS OF A BREAKTHROUGH? The Infidel points to an article that, among other things, notes the following:

Ambassador Han now says Pyongyang only wants a letter from President Bush guaranteeing North Korean security. Furthermore, he was very eager to emphasize, that Pyongyang no longer wants a non-aggression treaty.

If this is actually true, this would seem to be a significant change on the part of the DPRK. The Infidel goes on to quote a warning on the subject from the FEER

Of course, at the end, no one intends to invade North Korea. That's never been the plan in the way that it was for Iraq. Why not a security guarantee, then? Because this will allow the North, never a stickler for details in agreements, to continue surreptitiously with whatever it is doing without further pressure. Finally, does Mr. Bush want to show that bad regimes that kick out nuclear inspectors and abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be rewarded with a security guarantee? Bad idea.

So, if one accepts the contention of Infidel (or is it Elmer Fudd?--see the title of the blog post) that "the key is to make North Korea into a viable nation, not undermine it," what options are we left with? Can't guarantee the security of the DPRK because it will convince other would-be proliferators to imitate P'yongyang. Can't try to undermine the regime because that would be bad. What are we supposed to do then?
UPDATE: The Marmot weighs in on the subject.