Bush Makes Tactical Shift on N. Korea

Reaching out to North Korea, President Bush said Tuesday that he might consider food and fuel aid and a “bold initiative” to improve relations with the Pyongyang regime -- if it gives up its nuclear weapons program.

“People say, ‘Well, are you willing to talk to North Korea?’ Of course we are,” Bush said. “But what this nation won’t do is be blackmailed. And what this nation will do is use this as an opportunity to bring the Chinese and the Russians and the South Koreans and the Japanese to the table to solve this problem peacefully.”

Administration officials insisted that Tuesday’s overture was not a presidential policy shift. For months, the administration has said that to offer inducements to North Korea to abandon a nuclear program it had already promised to scrap would be to reward bad behavior. But Bush’s new willingness to discuss aiding the North if the nuclear program is dismantled was a change in tactics -- and a tacit acknowledgment that the administration has so far failed to get through to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

“They were always willing to talk about the sticks, but they didn’t want to talk about what the carrots are,” said Victor Cha, a Korea expert at Georgetown University. “Now you’re getting more of an elucidation of the carrots.... That’s not a change in position, but that’s progress.”

But two conservatives lambasted the president for resorting to what they called Clinton administration-style appeasement, and several members of Congress called for a tougher posture. And there were persistent though unconfirmed reports that the administration is deeply divided over how much to offer North Korea.

Gary L. Bauer, former head of the conservative Family Research Council, thundered in a letter to supporters that while the White House was claiming that it would not negotiate with North Korea, over the weekend State Department envoy James A. Kelly “was not only suggesting we were prepared to talk with a gun pointed at our heads, but we might even be open to investing in North Korea under the right circumstances.”

“This is a policy Clinton would be proud of, and it is because of his appeasement that we find ourselves in this position to begin with,” Bauer wrote.

But policy analysts said the administration has a number of reasons not to abandon its patient approach -- at least not yet.

First, the other options, including military action and sanctions, are all unpalatable. Second, Bush is under increasing pressure from North Korea’s anxious neighbors South Korea and Japan.

And finally, officials believe it may take time for the isolated and diplomatically unsophisticated North Korean regime to understand that opting for nuclear weapons will make it an international pariah.

Cha said the United States cannot rule out the possibility that what Kim really wants is to stall long enough to develop his nuclear arsenal.

“If what they want is a better deal [from the United States], and they’re dealing with a tougher administration, then why not have a better hand?” Cha said.

Before the revelation of North Korea’s secret uranium-enrichment program last year, the administration said it had been willing to offer North Korea a “bold new approach” to better relations. But since the U.S. and its allies cut off fuel oil aid, North Korea has lashed out with a series of provocative actions, culminating with its announcement last week that it would withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called “a step in the wrong direction.”

On Tuesday, the leading North Korean newspaper branded the Bush administration “insincere.”

Meanwhile, the diplomatic whirlwind continued Tuesday. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing would be happy to play host to talks between the U.S. and North Korea. Russia said it was dispatching an envoy to Pyongyang, Beijing and Washington to try to help resolve the standoff. And an Australian delegation was on its way to Pyongyang carrying a strong antinuclear message from one of the few countries that has diplomatic relations with North Korea.

Today, South and North Korea agreed to hold Cabinet-level talks in Seoul beginning Tuesday, a spokesman for the South said. South Korean officials have said that they would urge Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Washington welcomed efforts by other countries, although Boucher was noncommittal about talks in Beijing.

“The issue is not whether we talk, the issue is not when we talk, and the issue is not where we talk. The issue is really what we talk about,” Boucher said. “And we had made clear, we’re willing to talk to the North Koreans about how they can come into compliance with their international obligations.

“Unfortunately,” Boucher said, in their meetings with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over the weekend, North Korean diplomats didn’t signal a willingness to discuss scrapping the country’s nuclear program, the move Washington is waiting for.

If such a signal doesn’t come soon, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, it will refer Pyongyang’s withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty to the U.N. Security Council for action. U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton was scheduled to hold talks today in London with British and French officials to discuss possible Security Council action, Boucher said.

L. Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs in Washington, said the administration would prefer to see North Korea “face the music” of international condemnation in the Security Council if it insists on withdrawing from the treaty.

“I don’t see any fundamental change in policy,” he said. The only change in the administration’s tactics, he said, is “they have begun to hint at a light at the end of the tunnel, but the preconditions necessary to get into the tunnel or through the tunnel are still there.”

As the conflict with North Korea enters its fourth month, members of Congress have begun to weigh in. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) introduced legislation Tuesday formally ending all U.S. aid to North Korea under the 1994 agreement under which Pyongyang agreed to scrap its nuclear program and reimposing sanctions lifted in 1999. North Korea said last week that it would consider sanctions an act of war.

The bill demands that the Bush administration take additional measures against North Korea, such as interdicting weapons shipments, and beef up the U.S. military posture in the region. And it says that any future agreement with North Korea should include provisions to inspect for weapons of mass destruction as tough as those regarding Iraq.

“There’s always been a carrot. What’s been missing is an appropriate stick,” Kyl said. “There has to be an ‘or else.’ ”

McCain said he wants the administration to seek support for sanctions against North Korea from China and Russia.

Bayh, in a statement, cited the nightmare scenario that is becoming an increasingly real concern for policymakers: that the unpredictable, cash-strapped regime could start selling nuclear material, or even bombs, for cash.

“North Korea has demonstrated its willingness to export ballistic missiles to all buyers, and may be just as willing to export nuclear weapons materials to terror groups who target the American people,” he said.

The senators argued that the United States should follow similar principles, if not identical policies, in dealing with North Korea and Iraq.

However, Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, objected to characterizing talks with North Korea as “giving in to blackmail.” By that definition, he said, “we’ve given in to blackmail with the Soviet Union, with Mao’s China and with a whole bunch of other rogue states.”

For example, to resolve the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy secretly agreed to pull U.S. missiles out of Turkey in exchange for the Soviet Union’s dismantling its missiles in Cuba. And the U.S. continued to negotiate with the Soviets even while arguing that the Russians had cheated on some of their deals.

“The reality is, we want something from North Korea. We want them to give up their weapons.... We want them to open up to inspectors,” Daalder said. “If we want it bad enough, we should be willing to give something in return. Call it blackmail, but that’s the only way we’re going to get what we want.”

*

Times staff writers Paul Richter and Janet Hook contributed to this report.

*

U.S. statements on North Korea:

Here are some statements from the Bush administration regarding North Korea in the past year:

“States like these [North Korea, Iraq and Iran], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, aiming to threaten the peace of the world.”

President Bush, Jan. 29, 2002

“We are capable of fighting two major regional conflicts.... We are capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other. And let there be no doubt about it.”

Secretary of State Donald H. Rumsfeld, Dec. 23, 2002

“We’re not going to reward bad behavior and violation of previous commitments [North Korean officials] have made.”

State Department official, Dec. 26, 2002

“People say, ‘Well, are you willing to talk to North Korea?’ Of course we are. But what this nation won’t do is be blackmailed. And what this nation will do is use this as an opportunity to bring the Chinese and the Russians and the South Koreans and the Japanese to the table to solve this problem peacefully.”

President Bush, Jan. 14, 2003