SEOUL -- It is difficult not to compare the Seoul summit between South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and its sequel in Washington between Kim and U.S. President George W. Bush, given both countries' long history and deep involvement in Korean affairs. The stark contrast in the tone of two summits itself was particularly striking.
The Seoul summit was a highly symbolic and carefully prepared affair, largely successful in terms of policy goals (reaffirming the Russian-South Korean partnership and expanding the framework for economic cooperation) except for an ambiguous reference to national missile defense in the joint communique. By contrast, the Washington summit succeeded in muting Seoul's previous preference for diplomacy over NMD. Any real difference between the two capitals on the issue was fixed for the moment with compromise wording: We're for whichever works best, diplomacy or defense.
But it was less successful in other respects. Diplomacy is not only about priorities and choices, but also about preserving options. Sadly, that message was lost during the remainder of the Washington summit, which veered badly off-course over North Korean policy.