Kim Jong Il’s death creates diplomatic uncertainty for U.S.

Reporting from Washington —  For months, the Obama administration had been working quietly to resume talking with North Korea about its nuclear ambitions.

U.S. diplomats had pressed the North Koreans to suspend their uranium enrichment activities, seen as a first step toward wider nuclear talks. In return, Washington was offering to resume food and other humanitarian aid to a country perennially struggling to feed itself.

But Kim Jong Il’s abrupt death appears to have put the brakes on that fitful diplomatic momentum. For American policymakers accustomed to dealing with a leader who was sometimes erratic but always in charge, Kim’s death introduces uncertainty about who now calls the shots in North Korea’s opaque leadership.

The effect was apparent Monday, as the administration appeared fearful of getting the diplomacy wrong. It struggled over how to officially respond to Kim’s death, with some diplomats warning that failure to express official sympathy could anger a new regime headed by Kim Jong Un, the late leader’s designated heir.

In the end, the administration opted against issuing formal condolences for a leader notorious for running a brutal police state. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton avoided any mention of Kim’s death during an appearance at the State Department after a meeting with Japan’s foreign minister.

Instead, she urged a “peaceful and stable transition,” saying that the U.S. and Japan “reiterate our hope for improved relations with the people of North Korea and remain deeply concerned about their well-being.”

Her officials said they were holding off on what had been expected to be a shipment of 240,000 tons of humanitarian aid to North Korea, the first U.S. food aid in almost three years to a country where 3 million people are believed to be malnourished.

For Washington, the most important challenge is how to restrain the authoritarian regime’s development and production of nuclear warheads, plus its growing array of short-range, medium-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

North Korea tested nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009, and revealed a new uranium enrichment program last year. U.S. satellite imagery last month showed that construction of a new light water reactor was underway at Yongbyon, a center of its nuclear program.

Under Kim Jong Il, North Korea appeared willing to sacrifice the well-being of most of its people in return for nuclear status. U.S. officials say they expect Kim Jong Un to continue down that nuclear path, and say it is too early to tell whether the largely untested heir apparent is capable of political reform or opening to the West.

“North Korea is in a period of national mourning,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, ducking the question of whether Kim Jong Il’s death could provide an opening for an improved relationship between North Korea and the international community.

“This transition is just now beginning to take place,” he said. “The issue here isn’t about personalities. It’s about the actions of the government.”

Carney said U.S. officials had “no new concerns” about North Korea’s nuclear stockpile as a result of the Kim’s death and his son’s succession.

“I don’t think we have additional concerns beyond the ones we’ve long had with North Korea’s approach to nuclear issues, and we will continue to press them to meet their international obligations,” he said.

But Kim’s death has interrupted attempts to patch up a relationship rooted in more than 60 years of mistrust and grievances. Meeting under Chinese auspices in Beijing last weekend, U.S. and North Korean officials discussed the parameters of a deal that would require North Korea to suspend the uranium enrichment program it had showed off to a group of international scientists last year as a sign of good intentions.

Unconfirmed reports from South Korean media said the U.S. would, in return, resume food aid that had been suspended since early 2009, when North Korea ejected aid groups monitoring the distribution. The two sides had also been discussing the resumption of a program to bring home the remains of U.S. servicemen killed in the Korean War, another attempt to inject a measure of trust into their relationship.

Those initiatives are now on hold, U.S. officials said, at least during what is expected to be a lengthy mourning period in North Korea. The administration’s caution may also have been dictated by sensitivity to the Chinese government, parts of which are deeply suspicious of American intentions on the Korean peninsula.

U.S. officials also publicly downplayed the possibility that the succession question was propelling North Korea to take risks. They said they had detected no unusual troop movements, or changes in military readiness, since Kim’s death. The alert status was not raised for the nearly 30,000 U.S. troops based in South Korea.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the Pentagon had not seen “any change in North Korean behavior that would alarm us.”

Dempsey also played down North Korea’s launch of two short-range missiles Monday, saying the tests apparently were planned before Kim’s death.

Asked whether the accession of Kim Jong Un, who is believed to be 27 years old, could be destabilizing, Dempsey said, “I would only say that at this point that he is young to be placed in that position.”

But to some outside observers, Kim’s death may mark more than a shuffling of personalities at the top. Some former U.S. officials and regional experts said the shift could provide a historic opportunity to ease the conflict on the Korean peninsula.

Either way, some experts see this as the moment the fate of the Kim dynasty is determined. Victor D. Cha, who was a senior advisor to President George W. Bush on Korea, said in an emailed discussion paper circulated by the Center for Strategic and International Studies that what comes next will be far more significant than the question of whether nuclear talks can get traction.

“Any expert would have told you that the most likely scenario for a collapse of the North Korean regime would be the sudden death of the North Korean leader,” he wrote. “We are now in that scenario.”

paul.richter@latimes.com

Times staff writers Ken Dilanian, David C. Cloud and Christi Parsons in Washington, Peter Nicholas in Honolulu and Doyle McManus at Ramstein Air Base in Germany contributed to this report.