Is Bush Retreating From His ‘Axis of Evil’ Remark?

Did President Bush back down?

After three weeks of threatening talk about the “axis of evil,” the president was surprisingly tame, even mild-mannered, when he peered through bulletproof glass Wednesday across the demilitarized zone that separates North and South Korea. He offered dialogue, not confrontation. He talked of gestures of goodwill, not guns.

“We have no intention of invading North Korea. We would be happy to have a dialogue with the North Koreans,” he said at a news conference in Seoul with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung. “I wonder out loud why the North Korean president won’t accept the offer.”

Later, at the DMZ, he added, “We’re prepared to talk with the North about steps that would lead to a better future that is more hopeful and less threatening.”

Or were Bush’s clearly deliberate comments a one-day wonder? In their first meeting a year ago, Kim was publicly embarrassed when Bush appeared to distance himself from, even repudiate, the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s “sunshine policy” of rapprochement with the North. Were this week’s comments just a polite gesture to his South Korean host?

That’s the big question being widely pondered in the aftermath of Bush’s visit to the divided peninsula.

The president’s words initially eased some of the tension that has flared here since his State of the Union address put North Korea in an “axis of evil” with Iraq and Iran.

“I was relieved that his tone was not that harsh. I experienced war, and I don’t want to experience another one, as it will destroy all that we have built,” said Lee Myong Shik, a 65-year-old retired businessman. “I don’t approve of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il, but war should be avoided by all means.”

Bush’s emphasis on the suffering of North Koreans also played well in the South, which increasingly views its destitute neighbor with pity rather than fear.

Yet many South Koreans were also skeptical that Bush’s comments mean the danger of some kind of showdown or action has been avoided. The United States has demanded that North Korea dismantle its programs for weapons of mass destruction, pull back troops from the DMZ and end political repression.

“There was emphasis on dialogue, but we will see if he means what he says,” said Park Tae Woo, a 20-year-old liberal arts major who joined at least 4,000 student activists and union members at a march through downtown Seoul on Wednesday afternoon.

“No Bush! No War!” they chanted, marching behind a sound truck plastered with a poster of the Statue of Liberty superimposed with Bush’s face and the words “USA, Empire of evil. Bush, god of war.”

The protest was the biggest in a growing wave of anti-American demonstrations in recent days. The march along a one-mile route from Jungmyo Park to Myongdong Cathedral started peacefully. But a clash broke out when riot police tried to stop the protesters from burning a U.S. flag. Several demonstrators were injured.

Many South Koreans also questioned whether Bush’s statements--at the news conference with Kim, in remarks to U.S. troops at the DMZ and in an official toast at a state dinner--can undo the damage of last month’s remarks.

“We’ve often seen that what America says and does are different,” said Song Young Hoon, a 38-year-old security company worker. “America has little to lose if a war breaks out here, but we will lose everything.”

Bush administration officials insist that Washington can threaten the North at the same time it calls for dialogue.

“We believe that you can have a policy that speaks the truth clearly about the North Korean regime and yet leaves open the possibility of dialogue,” National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters on the eve of Bush’s six-day Asia tour that ends in China.

But South Korean analysts don’t buy the comparison that Bush made between his position and that of President Reagan, who in 1983 labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire” but also managed to hold talks with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

“Sometimes a choice of words can change the tide of political developments, but it won’t in this case,” said Lee Jong Seok, an expert here on North Korea.

Experts also doubt that Kim Jong Il will accept Bush’s invitation to talks because the United States wants too much--and offers limited incentives for his Communist leadership to cooperate.

Bush’s comments may actually have the opposite effect, some analysts here warn. The president put the North Korean leader in a box by not offering a way to return to negotiations without appearing to give in.

Analysts note, for example, that Bush apparently rejected Kim Dae Jung’s request for a special envoy to deal with North Korea.

“He didn’t answer the question about a special envoy, didn’t offer a way [for Kim Jong Il] to save face,” said Paik Hak Soon, a scholar on Korean politics. “North Korea may think that the United States doesn’t have any real intention to enter into dialogue.”

For now, Bush has left more questions than answers--the most basic being, what are his real intentions?

*

Chi Jung Nam in The Times’ Seoul Bureau contributed to this report.