Last week Jon asked for it, and this week we finally deliver.

    The question: Will the Six Party Talks on North Korea succeed?

    The answer from the I Ching: Yes, if basic US policy is sound and if clear leadership is exercised.  Read on for the analysis:

     For those keeping score at home: when asked the question, the oracle returned hexagram 22, "Grace," with a pure yang line in the fifth position, thus tending in the direction of hexagram 37, "The Family."

     I read this as indicating possible success, the strength of which will depend upon sincere leadership (which might be asking a lot with John Bolton at the UN!).  The Judgment section of "Grace" is fairly straightforward:

Grace has success. In small matters it is favorable to undertake something.

     "Grace" here suggests a pleasing external form which can beautify an underlying essential reality.  It implies that maintaining a proper and cautious diplomatic style could contribute to success, but only if the basic policy is sound.  For the Six Party Talks, this could mean that the fundamental strategy of engaging North Korea and finding the right mixture of inducements and sanctions could yield success, and the chances for success are heightened by proper, graceful diplomatic conduct.  The Bush Administration has not been known for its gracefulness on North Korean issues, so this might be expecting too much. 

     Grace, alone, is insufficient for success in something as important as nuclear diplomacy:

Thus [gracefully] does the superior man proceed when clearing up current affairs.  But he dare not decide controversial issues in this way.

     This suggests that a clear, hard-headed estimation of interests, and what can and cannot be done to secure them, is the essential thing that a graceful diplomatic style may enhance.  Up to this point, Bush and company have been approaching North Korea from more of an ideological point of view, seeing it as an "evil" which cannot be accommodated.  Now that the impossibility of military intervention is clear (who wants to spark an NK missile assault on SK, which is near certain if the US attacks?), it may be possible to see NK in a broader context of US regional interests.  Buying off NK nuclear development (essentially the SK and Chinese positions), imposing an intrusive verification system (like the one that came out of the 1994 Agreed Framework), and maintaining a collective deterrence posture: these are the kinds of policy decisions that are prior to grace.  And they could allow the US to attract SK back in our direction, which would redound to longer-term American strategic advantage.

      The pure yang line in the six place points to short term humiliation but longer term success.  Bush may have to eat some crow in the near term to maintain both gracious diplomacy and workable policies that SK and China support. The current stalemate could be such a test. But if he keeps to that combination, US interests could ultimately be well served.

     Moving in the direction of "The Family" implies that things will go well if clear lines of authority and leadership are maintained.  If Bush, himself, as the national father figure, is personally committed to finding a deal that can work with the North, and if can rein in disruptive "younger sons," who might be uncomfortable with their subordinate positions (Bolton comes immediately to mind), then the chances of success increase.

      So, it all comes down to Bush: how committed is he to a diplomatic process?  How much control does he have over hawks who do not want to stay the course of a negotiated settlement?  If Bush sticks with it, holds out through a moment of temporary humiliation, then the Talks could succeed. 

      But that might be asking too much…