THE BROADER VIEW : North Korea and the axis
Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006
As the United States and North Korea's neighboring nations search for an appropriate concerted response to Pyongyang's apparent nuclear test, the rogue regime of Kim Jong Il once again has demonstrated its ability to command world attention.
North Korea is one of three countries constituting a triple threat of high-stakes international security problems facing the United States. It is no coincidence that the three countries are the same countries dubbed by President Bush as the "axis of evil"in his 2002 State of the Union address.
That labeling of Iraq, Iran and North Korea nearly five years ago has come back to haunt the United States in various ways and could even be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Bush administration, of course, put the greatest emphasis on Iraq, which the United States invaded in 2003. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein took precedence over dealing with the overt nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, both of which took the "axis of evil"labeling as justification for anticipating U. S. action against them and as a reason for proceeding with their own nuclear development. Although President Bush insisted that the action in Iraq was central to the war on terror, the emphasis on Iraq also diverted attention away from al-Qaida.
Meanwhile in Iraq, Saddam was overthrown. However, the Bush administration overstated the case for going to war in Iraq and relied on questionable intelligence. The muchtouted weapons of mass destruction never materialized and the situation there has badly deteriorated, even though President Bush, acknowledging that these are "tough time in Iraq, continues to insist that progress is being made. The fierce sectarian strife continues and in many ways constitutes a civil war, with U. S. forces bogged down in the midst of it. American and Iraqi casualties continue to mount. A study released this week by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimates that more than 600, 000 civilians have died in Iraq since the 2003 U. S. invasion. Asked about this at his recent news conference, Bush said he did not consider the report credible. He said he stands by a 30, 000 figure he cited earlier. Others agree that the Johns Hopkins numbers may be high, but believe the number of casualties far exceeds 30, 000.
While focusing on Iraq and expending massive resources there, the Bush administration has given episodic attention to North Korea and Iran. Both, however, have continued to pursue nuclear ambitions and now the North Koreans have made a major international impact with their apparent test.
Although the Bush administration was generally seen as acting almost unilaterally in Iraq, with support only from Britain and a few others, the approach to Iran and North Korea has, at least ostensibly, been in conjunction with other key nations. Currently, the United States is working with other nations to develop sanctions on both North Korea and Iran. The multilateral diplomacy is commendable and correct, but part of the problem with both North Korea and Iran is that they have placed a premium on direct discussions with the United States.
Despite his stated reliance on diplomacy to deal with North Korea, Bush said again this week that "we will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea "and that the United States "reserves all options"in dealing with the problem. He reiterated that he opposes direct U. S.-North Korea talks.
The history of Bush's approach to North Korea is interesting and instructive. An early action on Korea set the tone for Bush foreign policy in a way that was not widely recognized at the time. In March 2001, then South Korean President Kim Dae Jung was the first foreign leader to visit the Bush White House. On the eve of Kim's visit, Bush's newly installed Secretary of State Colin Powell, said the administration would engage North Korea, continuing the process begun under President Clinton, and a policy favored by the South Korean leader. However, when Bush met the South Korean president, he made clear his opposition to resuming discussions with the North. Bush's hard line caught both Kim Dae Jung and Powell by surprise, but should have been a warning to Powell that he and Bush would often find themselves singing from a different page.
That initial signal on North Korea was, of course, followed up by the 2002 "axis of evil"speech. Bush did eventually agree to join sixparty talks on North Korea, with China, Russia and Japan participating along with the two Koreas. Little progress was made, however, and the designedly erratic North Koreans frequently cited U. S. hostility and threats as a reason for deferring the talks, while also insisting that they wanted to talk directly with America.
Now Kim Jong Il's regime has pushed the issue a dangerous step forward, setting off an international scramble. As Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln pointed out, the North Korean dictator "is desperate to be important."
The North Korean action also brewed up a tempest within this country as we saw the blame game played out once again. In recent weeks that involved the issue of which administration had or had not taken the al-Qaida threat seriously enough. This week there was back and forth about whether the Clinton or Bush administration had the better strategy on North Korea.
President Bush said that his approach was superior because his predecessor's bilateral agreement with North Korea failed, while the current administration is working to stop North Korean nuclear development trough multilateral diplomacy. Bush was joined in this position by Sen. John McCain, sometimes a Bush critic, who said the Clinton policies were a failure.
It is true that the Clinton approach did not reap great rewards. However, some of the claims being made in the current debate are not consistent with the record. First, the 1994 agreed framework with North Korea involved not only the United States, but Japan and South Korea. And beyond that, those involved from the Clinton years dispute the notion that the agreement failed. They point out that no new plutonium was produced in North Korea during that period, while clearly that has happened during the Bush tenure. And the North Koreans adamantly argue that the United States did not live up to its end of the bargain by supplying support for light-water reactors for peaceful purposes.
There's no doubt that the North Koreans are extremely difficult to deal with. However, Bush's disdain for direct talks has not had any positive impact. Bush seems to believe that we should talk only to friends, and not enemies. But, of course, diplomacy involves negotiating with foes as well as friends.
James Baker, who served as secretary of state under Bush's father, said this week," I believe in talking to your enemies... It's not appeasement to talk to your enemies. "Baker's statement related more to Iran and Syria - with which the current administration has also refused to talk - but the sentiment has application for North Korea as well.
For now, attention is focused on the efforts to get agreement in the U. N. Security Council for sanctions on North Korea - and on Iran. Trying to enlist China and Russia to back strong measures is challenging. China is an especially important player on North Korea and has agreed to sanctions, but favors a more limited package of restrictions than what the United States has proposed. There's no doubt that China has influence on North Korea, but the extent of that influence is probably misperceived, as the North Koreans resent pressure from their larger neighbor. And China fears chaos that might result if North Korea unraveled.
The Bush administration finds itself dealing with crises in all three of the "axis"nations and it should be apparent that bold rhetoric, however satisfying it might be at the time, may be counterproductive in the longer term.
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to Sen. J. William Fulbright, foreign / defense policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online