Setting precedents should worry Bush during 2003

The Bush administration’s biggest problem in 2003 will be
the economy.

House Democrats, led by incoming leader Nancy Pelosi, came out
swinging on Jan. 6 as they unveiled their economic stimulus package
which emphasizes fiscal responsibility and having a more imminent
effect on the average-income household. The White House’s
unwieldy $670 billion package is to be protracted over the course
of 10 years. This policy showdown will probably be a bitter one for
the White House, but the GOP’s control in the Congress and
White House will put Bush’s plan into action.

In the international realm, things are less manageable for
President Bush. An expensive and imprudent policy may be easy to
ram down the throats of the political elite of Washington, but it
would be a dead weight in the United Nations ““ especially
regarding the predicaments with Iraq and North Korea.

America has a lot at stake in these two situations. Foreign
policy is usually as much about precedent as it is about preventing
catastrophe. For the time being, neither aspect is going well.
Granted, except for Sept. 11, 2001, America has stood relatively
untouched given the magnificent dangers it faces. But it has yet to
be seen whether the strong, unwavering tone against Iraq and the
easy-going, diplomatic tone against North Korea will ultimately
result in their disarmament and a less dangerous environment.

In the realm of precedent, things are more predictable. The
White House’s stance vis-á-vis Iraq and North Korea
stands at a critical crossroad. If any action that is taken against
either country is drawn out over any length of time, U.S. foreign
policy may suffer from bankruptcy and incoherence. Amid the hum of
U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, which have not revealed much,
Americans hear the beat of President Bush’s war drum. Finding
what weapons Saddam Hussein may now possess is a difficult, if not
impossible, task. With a land mass roughly equal to that of
California, it is unrealistic to expect a group of only 100
individuals to thoroughly comb through such a large stretch of land
under a time constraint, particularly when the element of surprise
has been eliminated.

While aggressively seeking a culprit in violation of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (signed by North Korea in 1994), North
Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-Il, enters. His stance against the
United States has proven to be the mirror image of Hussein’s.
Kim dares to brandish the nuclear weapons he now possesses while
steadily escalating his nuclear program for still more.

Yet the White House insists there is a diplomatic solution that
would involve parties like Russia, China, South Korea and Japan,
with whom Kim has proclaimed he has little interest in interfacing.
Kim has gone so far as to threaten war in the event of economic
sanctions. Kim’s interest lies solely in direct dialogue with
the United States, probably in expectation of a favorable deal that
would maintain his grip on power. Former-Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson is meeting with North Korean diplomats to quell the
situation ““ some suspect ““ by conveying a written
assurance that good behavior would be rewarded.

Following the U.S. line of policy in these two cases ““
that is, an aggressive stance towards nations that haven’t
yet achieved nuclear capability (Iraq), coupled with relative
passivity towards those who have (North Korea) ““ what is to
stop, say, the ayatollahs of Iran from speeding up their program?
If anything, this policy emboldens those on the brink of achieving
nuclear weapons to move rapidly ahead. Iraq’s penalty for
tardiness in this area will most likely be met harshly while North
Korea’s progress may ultimately be tolerated.

If this formulation is to dictate U.S. foreign policy toward
rogue states with nuclear ambitions in the future, America’s
eroded credibility may be difficult to overcome in resolving a
tense standoff.