ARTICLE: “U.S. Said To Weigh A New Approach On North Korea: Bush Approval Expected; Plan for Discussing Formal Peace Treaty as Nuclear Talks Continue,” by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 18 May 2006, p. A1.

This policy change is being touted as an innovative new step from the Rice crowd at State, but to me, it comes off as a strange reward for Kim and North Korea, especially given our stance with Iran, which frankly has offered to help us out on the equivalent of a peace treaty in Iraq.

But admin officials say they push this peace treaty approach so as not to give Iran the wrong signals--i.e., that North Korea is getting away with it. How offering a peace treaty that effectively signals that we won’t seek regime change in Pyongyang should act to dissuade Iran, which desperately seeks such an assurance through acquisition of the bomb, is beyond me. Doesn’t it say the exact opposite? Get the bomb and we’ll promise not to invade?

This new approach does not say, “give up the bomb and THEN we’ll give you the peace treaty.” Instead, it proposes two tracks of negotiation. Why that is such a mental breakthrough on totalitarian North Korea while being impossible to consider with authoritarian (and tired, at that) Iran is really weird.

It’s hard to see how Kim will give up the bomb for the treaty when it’s clear we’re offering the treaty because he has the bomb.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but to me, this is a bad sign of how little Rice’s State Department will take advantage of the freedom of action provided by a Bush post-presidency already begun.