THE RISING EAST
Bush has few reasons to sign pact N. Korea seeks
By Richard Halloran
Behind all the diplomatic and some not-so-diplomatic rhetoric in the confrontation about North
Advertiser library photo
Korea's nuclear ambitions, there are three basic reasons why President Bush will not offer the North Koreans the non-aggression pact they demand.
Protesters calling for a U.S. nonaggression treaty with the North used a mock tank to symbolize the U.S. military at a rally in Seoul, South Korea.
One is constitutional: The president's chances of rounding up the two-thirds majority (67 votes) in the Senate required to approve such a treaty are close to zero. Too many senators from the left and the right would vote against it, for differing reasons.
The second is political: The president does not want to stir up another controversial issue in the presidential campaign — not when he has Iraq, the global war on terror, medical insurance, unemployment and the budget deficit staring him in the face.
The third reason is North Korean diplomatic behavior: They are up to their capricious antics again, scoffing at Bush's proposal for a multinational pledge that North Korea will not be attacked, then saying they were ready to consider it. By Wednesday, they were back to asserting that the offer was "nothing but a sleight of hand" from one not qualified to be president.
Add to that North Korea's long, well-documented record of breaking international agreements, and the reasons for widespread skepticism in the administration and Congress about entering into accords with Pyongyang become evident.
The Bush administration has suggested for at least 10 months that it could give North Korea written promises the United States would not attack. Bush capped those assurances during his recent trip to Asia, telling reporters: "A treaty is not going to happen, but there are other ways to effect, on paper, what I have said publicly: We have no intention of invading."
Bush's plan is to persuade North Korea's immediate neighbors — China, Japan, South Korea and Russia — to sign the pledge. China has taken the lead in guiding what are known as the six-party talks aimed at persuading North Korea to back away from its nuclear ambitions, and seems eager to see North Korea abandon its nuclear plans.
The inclusion of Japan and South Korea would be essential to a nonaggression pledge with North Korea, because each has a security treaty with the United States. The United States will insist that an agreement with North Korea not dilute the U.S. commitment to help defend Japan and South Korea.
In return, the North Koreans would give up plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal in a way that could be verified. That most likely would be more difficult than imagined, as the North Koreans have threatened several times in the past two weeks, albeit obliquely, to explode a nuclear device.
"When the appropriate time comes," said the official North Korean Central News Agency, Pyongyang "will take a measure to open its nuclear deterrent to the public as a physical force, and then there will be no need to have any more argument."
In the Senate, Bush's rival for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, has long been among the most outspoken critics of U.S. policy toward North Korea, particularly that of former President Bill Clinton. McCain would almost certainly cast a jaundiced eye on a proposed nonaggression treaty.
Among moderates, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has applauded Bush's insistence on multinational diplomacy while leaving the door open for one-on-one talks. Lugar has shown no enthusiasm for a nonaggression treaty.
On the Democratic side, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a contender for the presidential nomination, has advocated persuading North Korea to freeze its nuclear program in return for "some commitment from the United States that North Korea's security will not be jeopardized." At the same time, he says, "we must make clear that we retain all options, including the military option, if North Korea breaks the freeze."
Politicians of all stripes watch the opinion polls, obviously, and register little enthusiasm for trusting the North Koreans with a treaty. One poll reported that 61 percent of Americans regarded North Korea as a long-term threat, while another survey put the figure at 79 percent. Still another survey found that 59 percent thought North Korea was a problem, while 22 percent said the threat constituted a crisis.
Richard Halloran is a former New York Times correspondent in Asia.
