In a real sense, the new multilateral agreement with North Korea has moved the calendar back to 1994, when a similar accord with Pyongyang was reached.

Unfortunate as it is to lose more than a decade in productive diplomacy, 1994 is not a bad place to begin.

There's much about the nonproliferation accord that's less than ideal. It may not be a great sacrifice for North Korea to halt nuclear developments at its main reactor at Yongbyon, which is said to be near the end of its productive life.

Secondly, Japan is still not among the nations offering North Korea aid in return for disarming.

And there are so many critical points left unsettled: The timetable for verifiably removing the weapons and the enriched uranium is principal among these.

Critics — including former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton — were quick to urge President Bush to reject the deal and said the "hollow" agreement effectively "rewarded" nuclear proliferation.

Clearly the accord isn't perfect, even as a starting point. But, to quote Daryl Kimball, executive director of the nonprofit Arms Control Association, "the perfect should not be the enemy of the necessary." And this easing of the tensions is necessary.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice countered Bolton's assessment by saying the agreement is more likely to be read "as a message to Iran that the international community is able to bring together its resources."

Although much more work remains to defuse tensions in Asia, it's more rational to resume diplomacy than to cling to a failed, hard-line approach.

And it's a more productive attitude to bring to the looming crisis with Iran. Circumstances are different, but the potential of multilateral talks should apply there as well.