Missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction

What about Bush Administration policy?

Don't want to go through a blow by blow description. Bottom line is that until recently, the Bush Administration did not have a policy towards North Korea. It had a bureaucratic deadlock.

Deep splits between internationalist moderates like Colin Powell and neo-conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and others in the White House. A third key actor has been the President himself who has a vehement dislike of Kim Jong-il but also seems open to appeals from Republican moderates.

Two years of treading water. Very half-hearted attempts to restart the policy of engagement and dialogue Clinton Administration had with North Korea. Periodic extremely negative public pronouncements about North Korea - probably justified - such as "axis of evil speech." Leaks of Pentagon documents that put Pyongyang in our cross-hairs.

Two years of deadlock may have been critical.

First, that was two years where we were not actively managing a potentially very serious problem, North Korea's HEU program. (Uranium enrichment history)

Second, not clear what affect these two years had on North Korea. Maybe none. But you can argue that it only made a bad situation worse in terms of decisions being made in Pyongyang.

That brings us to the current crisis which broke out in October after we accused North Korea of having a secret uranium enrichment facility. Whether that problem was handled correctly is open to debate. I would argue that the confrontational approach initially pursued by US was, once again, the result of bureaucratic deadlock.

Not going to rehash history of the past 10 months; that encounter has essentially triggered the slow motion collapse of the 1994 agreement, particularly its provisions which froze North Koreans much more extensive plutonium production facilities.

Just to give you an idea, if those facilities had not been frozen in 1994, today North Korea would probably have a stockpile of over 100 nuclear weapons. No one thinks that is the case even with the recent violation.

North Korea has unfrozen its facilities, kicked out IAEA inspectors monitoring the 1994 agreement and withdrawn from the NPT, the first country ever to do so. Not clear whether this is all for bargaining purposes - looking for a new deal - or because they really mean to go forward. Or it may be for both - have their cake and eat it to - or they may not know themselves - not on autopilot.

The initial US response to all this was very interesting - and confusing - to watch. Initially, it was one of disarray, reflecting the bureaucratic splits and deadlock.

Denied that a crisis existed and said that it did not matter if North Korea built more nuclear weapons.

Other trial balloons prodding Japan to go nuclear as a way of forcing China's hand. Or speculation about whether we should withdraw troops from ROK since the South was taking a softer line from us.

Could see Administration doing everything possible to avoid talking to North Korea - once again a reflection of the bureaucratic split.

But U.S. policy has evolved over the past six months. I am now cautiously pessimistic since I detect a semblance of a policy emerging from the debris. The moderates in fact have been gaining ground.

The first step in this has been the willingness of the Administration to engage in diplomatic dialogue but only in the context of six party talks - the ones just held in Beijing - with Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea also attending.

These talks represented a compromise between the US and North Korea - the US compromised on its refusal to meet with the North Koreans bilaterally. In the context of these talks, there will be bilateral encounters (although at this point still very limited). The North Koreans compromised on their refusal to meet other than bilaterally.

But the current US focus on multilateral talks reflects the moderate's strategy. It's a weapon they are trying to use against opponents.

Understand that both the United States and North Korea are likely to come under pressure to compromise by others such as China and Russia in the context of multilateral talks.

Does anyone believe the US position that North Korea has move first before the US does anything will be acceptable to others?

Does anyone believe that the US position on verification will be the same as the Chinese and Russian positions? No. Moderates are counting on this to nudge Washington towards compromises.

Second component is signs that the Administration is moving forward with consideration of a security guarantee for North Korea. Not the same as their demand for a non-aggression treaty but shows movement in the right direction.

Third component of strategy is the Administration's initiative to intercept ships carrying drugs, missiles, WMD and related materials. Not convinced that this will be at all effective but seems to be part of two track approach - talk and put pressure on North.

I believe that talks with Pyongyang need to be accompanied by effective pressure. But this Administration has essentially shot itself in the foot on putting together an effective multilateral coalition that will support pressure, including sanctions or other measures.

Why are moderates gaining the upper hand. A number of alternative explanations.

One explanation is that the Administration's foreign policy is in danger of spinning out of control. No better example of that than situation in Iraq. Don't need another crisis on their hands given that problem and upcoming election.

Second explanation is stock of unilateralist hard liners in Administration has fallen, particularly because of Iraq. Gossip that Colin Powell has used one-on-one contacts with President to nudge him to support moderate agenda, including on North Korea.

Third explanation is that Bush decision-makers are on a painful learning curve. Have seen this happen before. As senior policy-makers have to confront a potentially dangerous problem and spend more and more time discussing it, their views evolve. They learn.

Fourth, the Administration is being responsive to pressure from other countries, particularly China. Not clear to me that Japan has done anything to push Administration in right direction. South Korea still on probation.

Finally, I could be totally wrong and all of this could be a cynical ploy by the Administration to appear like it is moving in the right direction but in reality it is trying to maneuver the North Koreans into becoming the fall guys. Always an element of that to any strategy. Not convinced this is the main motivating factor.