U.S. Debate Renews Focus on N. Korea

North Korea’s quest for nuclear weapons, a problem that has bedeviled successive U.S. administrations, has reemerged as a foreign policy issue after a sharp exchange between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry during this week’s presidential debate.

Bush and Kerry clashed Thursday over how to end North Korea’s drive to develop nuclear weapons. Kerry called for one-on-one talks between Washington and Pyongyang, whereas Bush warned that doing so would derail ongoing talks among six governments.

U.S. efforts to thwart North Korea’s nuclear ambitions date back more than a decade. Former President Clinton tried to engage the country’s eccentric leader, Kim Jong Il. Bush decided to isolate and pressure him.

In the two years since the United States focused its attention on Iraq, Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions have been relegated to the back burner of U.S. foreign policy, nonproliferation experts say.

“The issue has been neglected,” said William C. Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “We are paying the consequences now of putting a real crisis on the back burner while we dealt with Iraq.”

Kerry declared Thursday that he would return to Clinton’s approach, which Bush and many conservative foreign policy advocates say didn’t work.

However, other analysts contend that things have only become worse under Bush’s approach. Experts also questioned Bush’s claim that direct talks would undermine the six-party negotiations.

North Korea has remained undeterred in its weapons efforts. Intelligence estimates suggest that it has enough processed plutonium to produce between four and eight nuclear weapons. Arms control specialists say they agree with intelligence assessments that Pyongyang probably had enough material for only one bomb at the time Bush came into office.

A nuclear-armed North Korea led by an unpredictable dictator is viewed as a major destabilizing presence by all countries in the region, including China and Japan. Kim’s often-eccentric behavior and strident anti-Americanism have also generated worries that Pyongyang might sell a nuclear device to a terrorist group.

In Thursday’s debate, Bush insisted that existing six-party talks among Japan, China, Russia and South Korea, in addition to the U.S. and North Korea, were making headway.

“I think this will work,” Bush said. “It’s not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il.”

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to the six-party talks Friday and said the multilateral approach was taken only after the bilateral formula of the Clinton years had failed.

“We have chosen to go this route precisely because the bilateral experience failed,” Ereli said. “When we did have bilateral engagement with North Korea, they signed agreements which they promptly violated.”

However, several arms control specialists interviewed Friday argued that direct contact between Washington and Pyongyang had become essential.

Charles L. Pritchard, a former U.S. special envoy to North Korea for both Bush and Clinton, said he agreed with Kerry on the importance of holding both bilateral and multilateral talks at the same time. By doing so, the United States would have a better chance of finding out what kind of deals would appeal to the North Koreans and of using international influence to see that they bear fruit, he said.

“The path that the president’s been on has resulted in North Korea’s reprocessing spent fueled rods, extracting plutonium and probably making another six nuclear weapons, bringing their total probably to eight,” he said. “By itself, the six-party talks will not work.”

Nonproliferation expert Potter acknowledged that direct contacts offered no guarantee of success, but said he still leaned toward Kerry’s formula.

“It’s unsure they will get us very far, but we have to exhaust all channels available to us,” he said. “I don’t think we’ve invested what is needed to bring them to the table.”

Pritchard noted that a North Korean official had said Monday that Pyongyang had “weaponized” a nuclear bomb. Although the declaration was vague, “they’ve now come as close as they can to declaring themselves a nuclear power on the president’s watch,” Pritchard said. “The current approach is not working.” Bush administration officials contend that bilateral talks will give the North Koreans greater leverage with the U.S. and will reduce the pressure that can be applied by other nations.

But, Pritchard said, there was clear evidence that the other parties would remain engaged. He said the Chinese were strongly committed to the effort to prevent the North Koreans from accumulating a nuclear arsenal. Even though a meeting of the Chinese, North Koreans and Americans in April 2003 proved an “absolute failure,” the Chinese soon renewed their efforts to bring the parties together, he said.

“The Chinese believe they have their own national interests at heart,” said Pritchard, now a visiting scholar at Brookings Institution. “They won’t sit on the sidelines.”

The reemergence of North Korea as an issue in the presidential campaign could give new prominence to an issue that appeared to be difficult for Bush, said Eric Heginbotham of the Council on Foreign Relations. Although Bush defined nuclear nonproliferation as the No. 1 security priority, the North Koreans managed to make progress in building their arsenal during his presidency, Heginbotham said.

“This is pretty tough for him to answer in the campaign.”