SPEAKING
FREELY North Korea: The unsung
success By Nirav Patel
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Amid partisan banter
and bashing of President George W Bush, one
foreign-policy success story remains unsung and
under-appreciated. North Korea's decision to
undertake preliminary
steps toward disarmament
negotiations is a breakthrough that was improbable
two years ago.
On Wednesday, International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed
ElBaradei said that the United Nations watchdog's
inspectors had confirmed the closure of all five
facilities at North Korea's main nuclear complex
at Yongbyon.
Pundits from the left and
right ends of the political spectrum have
lambasted Bush's foreign policy for undermining
international security and ushering in an era of
preventive war and global instability. Bush's
foreign-policy blunders have generated tremendous
international condemnation that negatively impacts
America's diplomatic capital.
This is
highlighted by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
provocative comments toward the United States,
Iran's saber-rattling, and numerous countries'
decisions to question and back away from US
security and economic assistance. If this is the
case. why is North Korea seriously engaging the US
and international community to pursue steps toward
nuclear disarmament?
The ability of
Christopher Hill, US special envoy and assistant
secretary of state for East Asia, to establish a
proactive and patient diplomatic framework for the
resolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis is
an unusual success story amid the current US
foreign-policy failures.
Hill's
persistence and ability to integrate "talk
therapy" into actionable and successful diplomacy
are proving successful as North Korea is gradually
altering its decision to be a nuclear-weapons
state. However, this process is far from complete.
Even though Pyongyang is accepting IAEA
inspectors' jurisdiction, it remains to be seen
whether the hermetic regime known for its ability
to extract concessions from engagement strategies
will be successful.
What is certain is
that Hill has seemingly done the impossible by
crafting a delicate diplomatic strategy to
persuade North Korea to change course.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies
treat diplomacy as a gift only for countries that
are in line with US interests.
However,
diplomacy is more than a gift; it is important for
dealing with countries that have open animosity
toward the United States - such as North Korea.
Historically, diplomacy between the Soviet Union
and the United States allowed for a "cold peace"
to develop that was founded on the benefits of
transparency and implemented through arms-control
treaties and an implicit understanding of the
benefits of diplomacy versus nuclear war.
Hill's ability to revitalize the six-party
talks and successfully orchestrate a diplomatic
agreement should be heralded as proof of the
utility of diplomacy in resolving seemingly
intractable security conditions.
Regardless of who the next president of
the US is, he or she will face myriad challenges
that will require revitalizing the role of
diplomacy - in particular the unsung role of
special envoys. However, it will be insufficient
merely to anoint a person without having the
blessing and being empowered by the president to
make responsible decisions that are in line with
America's national-security interests.
If,
for example, former British prime minister Tony
Blair has the opportunity to become a US
representative to the Middle East, he must have
flexibility to engage in candid and open
negotiations with all parties. Failure to divest
decision-making authority to a special envoy will
likely generate sub-optimal results. The next US
president will have to find a fleet of special
envoys capable of creating dialogue with regimes
that have been isolated by the current
administration.
This will be particularly
true in Iran. Tehran's decision to pursue
enrichment of uranium is seen by many analysts and
government officials as a step toward acquiring a
nuclear deterrent. Current negotiations between
the European Union-3 (France, Germany and Britain)
and Iran are proving futile as the latter
continues to invoke Article IV of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty as justification for its
peaceful nuclear program.
Moreover, Tehran
has no compunction about negotiating with the
United States because it recognizes the current
limits of US power and insecurity of its
diplomatic strategies. Facilitating diplomatic
communication and high-level diplomacy with Iran
will require the use of a special envoy capable of
assuaging Iran's security concerns and making
decisions on the behest of the president.
The future will most probably generate
existential crises for US hegemony; however, the
unsung success of Hill's diplomatic efforts is a
model for developing diplomatic frameworks capable
of resolving and simultaneously rejuvenating US
diplomatic capital. Lessons learned should not be
forgotten amid political rancor and disdain for
Bush.
The class of January 2009 should
pursue a responsible foreign policy that
acknowledges both problems and successes of
current approaches and building off of them.
Hill's efforts to date should serve a guide for
future US diplomatic efforts.
Nirav
Patel is a national-security analyst at the
Center for a New American Security in Washington,
DC, and has a master's degree in international
security from Georgetown University's School of
Foreign Service.
(Copyright 2007 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
