World

Reading Tea Leaves On N.Korea

By CBSNews.com staff CBSNews.com staff

October 27, 2000 / 2:00 PM EDT / CBS

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has returned from Pyongyang. Yes, Pyongyang, capital of North Korea, a country the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with, a country listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and a country against which the U.S. has stationed 37,000 armed troops because of fears the North Koreans might once again attack America's ally, South Korea.

And there's another pesky little problem: North Korea may have several nuclear weapons -- no one is really quite sure -- and it supplements its outside income by exporting its missile technology to other countries, like Pakistan and Iran, which tend to make various parts of the world even more unstable than they are already.

"No one visit finalizes policy changes," says Selig Harrison of the Century Foundation in Washington, "but Albright's visit opened up progress on the missile issue."

According to senior aides to Secretary Albright, in the category of world capitals she might have dreamed about visiting during her four years as America's top diplomat, Pyongyang was not on the top ten list. Or top twenty. Teheran, yes. Baghdad, doubtful, but with a change in leadership one can hope. But Pyongyang! No way.

How did Albright's trip come about? Most of the credit goes to South Korea's President, Kim Dae Jung, who was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the state of war which still formally exists on the Korean Peninsula.

Alan Romberg of the Stimson Center says because Kim Dae Jung reached out to North Korea, "everyone supports engaging the North, it's just a matter of how." Albright also notes "our relationship is being built on what President Kim Dae Jung was able to do."

Clinton Administration policy toward North Korea (known formally as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea-- the DPRK for short) has been one of low key, slow but steady engagement. Early negotiations led to the so-called "Agreed Framework" of October, 1994 which froze North Korea's nuclear program. Subsequent rounds of talks have focused on curbing their missile proliferation, their status as a state sponsor of terrorism and establishing diplomatic relations. All of the negotiations have been difficult and progress has been slow. The word most often used by State Department officials to describe North Korea is "opaque."

Now, the U.S. very well may be on the verge of a sea change in its dealings with North Korea.

Secretary Albright received "more than a red carpet" reception, says Selig Harrison, who has made 6 trips to North Korea. He takes note of the amount of time -6 hours-accorded to Albright by North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il. Even Mr. Kim, who rules like a dictator, has domestic political concerns, especially from the military which is used to getting its way. "Kim Jong Il stuck his neck way out," says Harrison of the greeting Albright received, and he is "sure the harliners...don't like what's going on."

Richard Solomon, President of the U.S. Institute of Peace and an Asia specialist says Albright's trip was "better than people anticipated." But Solomon warns "now comes the tough part." If the North Koreans really want to change they have to reallocate resources from the military to the civilian side and, says Solomon, "there's a fundamental question if the military will give up (resources)...if they won't, then the opening will vanish."

Now that Albright has returned to Washington the big question is whether President Clinton will make his own trip to North Korea. President Clinton is due to go to Vietnam and other stops in Asia next month and the speculation is that Pyongyang will be added to his itinerary. Washington's community of Asian analysts are split on the idea of Mr. Clinton going to North Korea, especially as a lame duck .

Ken Lieberthal, a former advisor to President Clinton at the NSC, now at the Brookings Institution, says the President "clearly should not go, if going is a historic first but without substance. You don't want a President to make a visit like this unless there are substantive accomplishments," Lieberthal says, because others in the region will see it as an act of weakness.

Alan Romberg of the Stimson Center agrees "there have to be concrete achievements that are meaningful. You can't go just for the sake of going."

But Selig Harrison looks at a Presidential trip from a different angle. "President Clinton should go, just to keep the momentum going," says Harrison. "Since they've raised the issue of his going....not going would set back relations."

Joel Wit, a guest scholar at Brookings who has worked on North Korean issues for the U.S. government, agrees. "I don't see any downside" to a Presidential visit, says Wit, who sees Albright's trip as proof of the "thawing of the political relationship."

The debate over a Presidential trip will be played out in op-ed pieces, think tank seminars and behind the scenes phone calls and letters to the highest reaches of Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House. Since there isn't that much time, we will soon know just how much President Clinton wants to be the first president to visit North Korea and, perhaps, just how much North Korea wants to move away from its self-imposed isolation of the last 50 years.