Don Kirk’s Election Observations
by Richardson ~ November 10th, 2006. Filed under: America, Engagement, Korean Politics, Six-Party Talks, Washington Views.Another excellent read at the Asia Times:
The most extraordinary aspect of the US mid-term elections and their immediate aftermath from the viewpoint of anyone with an interest in the North Korean nuclear standoff was that the entire topic was overlooked, if not forgotten.
[. . .]
The reason for the upheaval in the Pentagon was Iraq, not North Korea, even though Rumsfeld has been a prime mover behind a controversial US scheme for pulling back US troops from positions between Seoul and the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas and consolidating US forces in an expanded base still in dispute about 80 kilometers south of Seoul.
If North Korean leader Kim Jong-il went to all the trouble of firing up a nuke and seven missiles to get Washington’s attention, he appeared to have failed as far as American politicians were concerned.
[. . .]
Bush needs to avoid any possible flare-up on the Korean Peninsula while attempting to allay demands to alter if not end the US role in Iraq, and he will have to return to the topic, however reluctantly, when he goes to Hanoi next week for the meeting of leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group.
[. . .]
While hawks in the Pentagon and National Security Council may still want to get tough with North Korea, Democrats clearly see negotiations as the only way to resolve the nuclear standoff. Richardson and numerous other Democratic biggies, including two former presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, angered the Bush administration by calling for bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang until North Korea finally agreed to go for the first six-party talks in a year.
Somewhat reluctantly, Richardson conceded that it now “makes sense” for the US and North Korea to do their talking “through the six-party process” - the setting in which the chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, saw his North Korean counterpart, Kim Gye-gwan, on the sidelines of last year’s six-party talks in Beijing.
Read the rest here.
November 11th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Mr. Kirk’s article on our negotiating position with respect to Pyongyang was the espousal of as much of a ‘belly up’ stance as I have had the misfortune to read in quite a while.
1) Negotiations with Pyongyang?
… with the topic of these negotiations being exactly just what? … How much money we intend to donate to support the DPRK? … or, possibly, … How many citizens Pyongyang is scheduling for transfer into the Gulag during the upcoming Fiscal Year to offset the currently projected shortfall in income based upon its illegitimate operations?
2) ‘Respectful’ approach?
… with all due respect to Mr. Lantos … but does Mr. Lantos actually ever read KCNA? Does not ‘respect’ imply something of a ‘two-way street’? Make no mistake about it … every time we give Pyongyang a pass on their vituperative language we will pay the price for this folly when it comes time to actually negotiate, in that we’ve already conceded the point about whether they need to keep a civil tongue in their mouths.
3) ‘twin light-water reactors to help fulfill energy needs’?
I wish all concerned would read the Nautilus Institute’s article ‘South Korea’s Power Play at the Six-Party Talks’ (http://www.nautilus.org/napsnet/sr/2005/0560ROK_Energy_Aid.pdf) to see just how much these reactors were NOT NOW OR EVER going to help fulfill Pyongyang’s energy needs.
4) ‘North Korea may signal its strategy … at the APEC meeting.’
Mr. Kirk has been covering ‘the confrontation of forces in Northeast Asia - for more than 30 years’ and he comes up with this almost inane statement? … or is Mr. Kirk being intentionally facetious?
The only party that seems to be ’standing tall’ through all of this is Tokyo, pointedly not mentioned by Mr. Kirk.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
The fundamental problem with our approach with North Korea (or Iran) right now is that we are neither using sticks nor carrots.
It isn’t enough to be simply confrontational. There has to be some prospect of pain for our opponent. As a well-known conservative leader often says “in politics, nothing moves unless pushed.” Tough talk is not pushing.
Of course, it is always better to sweeten that pushing with some honey in return for our opponent seeing the light suddenly. But, in the end, the prospect of pain — pushing — is what moves. People are 3-4 times more motivated by pain or loss as by gain. This administration has engaged in tough talk, but has not presented that calculus to Iran and North Korea for a variety of reasons, one of which is the lack of political will based on poll numbers view of the American people.