THE political clock ticking, the Bush administration has shifted tactics and plans high-level talks with Iran and North Korea, meeting foes once part of President George W. Bush's “axis of evil.” Senior diplomat William Burns was set to see Iran's nuclear envoy in international talks on Saturday and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet North Korea's foreign minister for the first time, most likely on Wednesday, in Singapore. Several foreign policy experts say the decision to be more open to engagement reflects a more pragmatic foreign policy - adopted after other approaches failed. “The president realized that our old policies were not working. We have been putting ourselves into a corner and were continuing to lose more and more ground on critical issues,” said former US ambassador to Israel and Egypt, Ned Walker. The Bush administration insists the diplomatic steps are not a policy shift, particularly on Iran where Rice says Burns' attendance is a “one-shot deal” and full-blown negotiations can happen only if Tehran gives up sensitive nuclear work. “It's a slight shift in diplomatic tactics. We're trying to push what we see as an advantage. But the substance is the same,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. But some analysts said the administration, mindful of its legacy in the last months of Bush's presidency, is paying attention to bipartisan and global pressure to engage Iran and North Korea at a high level. Bush's team was also following the advice of the Iraq Study Group - albeit 18 months later - to start talking to Iran to try to lessen tensions in the region. US diplomats have met Iranian officials in recent years to discuss Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United States is involved in six-nation talks with North Korea, but it will be Rice's first meeting with a minister from Pyongyang and the first direct US attendance in nuclear talks with Iran. The Bush administration may be accepting that talking to the enemy does not amount to capitulation, experts said. “Most of the world would not consider talking or not talking to a negotiating partner as a policy decision. It is a prerequisite to achieving anything,” said James Dobbins, a former US diplomat now with the think-tank RAND Corp. Change in guard Walker said one reason for the change is that there are fewer rigid neoconservatives left in the government who had always opposed engaging US foes. “The players (in government) are different. Therefore you have a more serious effort to engage,” said Walker. Middle East expert Jon Alterman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the arrival of Robert Gates at the Pentagon, replacing Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, helped to bring a more pragmatic approach. Also, Rice's voice has become more influential and she was more prepared to speak out for engagement as she had the support of Gates and others at the Pentagon. “I think you are having people say this is the logical next step and the resistance to that has been greatly diminished,” said Alterman. While the meetings are significant, diplomats are testing the water rather than becoming totally submerged, with Rice speaking of an “informal discussion” with North Korea and Burns told to listen and not negotiate until Iran meets conditions. Both exchanges also take place in the context of multilateral nuclear negotiations, not on a bilateral basis. Daniel Serwer of the nonpartisan US Institute of Peace said US attendance at the meetings showed solidarity with its partners. On Iran, Washington works with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany to try to prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon. In the case of North Korea, Washington is in six-nation talks that bring together the two Koreas, Japan, Russia, China and the United States. The Bush administration took the lead in deciding to invade Iraq in 2003 and drew scorn from many allies but this time, Alterman said, there was a sense it was preferable to act within a multilateral setting. “This is sending the message that cooperation has benefits and defiance has consequences,” said Alterman. Either way, analysts say a decision to be more open to talking to foes will help both candidates in November's presidential election. Republican John McCain opposes talks with Iran without preconditions and Democrat Barack Obama has long advocated engagement. “At a minimum it will help the next administration, whoever it is, not to jump over this hurdle and suffer all the consequences of a national debate over whether to talk or not,” said Dobbins. - Reuters __
