Page 1 of 2 Through the (North Korean) looking glass
By Bruce Klingner
Ironies abound in the current United States policy toward North Korea. Someone
awakening from a long slumber could be forgiven for concluding that a naively
liberal president George W Bush had been replaced by neo-conservative Barack
Obama.
Moreover, one would assume that the majority of mainstream media must also be
neo-conservative since there had been nary a squeak of derisive commentary
about Obama's firm and unyielding pressure tactics except from a few isolated
angry liberals. In this, the media must simply be reflecting the predominant
conservative view of the public; two-thirds of American respondents feel Obama
should be even tougher on North Korea.
However, those who have followed US policy toward North Korea
will remember that the US media derided the first six years of the Bush policy
as provocatively hard line, controlled by a cabal of ideologically-driven
neo-conservatives. This widely-accepted paradigm persisted despite North Korean
violations and provocations. The paradigm was superseded by another in which
the Bush administration was praised during its final two years for seeing the
light and adopting the pragmatic, realist policy long advocated by Democrats
(eg Senators John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton).
In response to North Korean escalatory behavior, Obama has largely adopted the
policy of the first six years of Bush, even using strikingly similar rhetoric.
To be sure, both policies were proper and prudent responses to North Korean
violations of international agreements. There has been a conspicuous
difference, however, in the response of the media and pundits. Those who
excoriated Bush officials now remain silent over virtually verbatim statements
by the current administration. Alice in Wonderland would describe it as
"curiouser and curiouser". Yet, one can't help but suspect a demonstrable
degree of hypocrisy.
Continuity we can believe in
In early 2009, there was near euphoric expectation that the change in US
leadership would lead to a more accommodating Pyongyang eager for significant
improvement in bilateral relations. Obama had even vowed during the
presidential campaign to meet separately, without preconditions, during the
first year of his administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela,
Cuba and North Korea, asserting that "the notion that somehow not talking to
countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic
principle of this administration - is ridiculous".
Yet, despite campaigning on a platform strongly criticizing the Bush approach
to North Korea, Obama planned to continue his predecessor's policy. A US
diplomat involved in the North Korean negotiations commented privately that "we
were going to largely pick up where we had left off [at the end of the Bush
administration"].
Obama neglected to explain to the electorate that Bush did not have a single
eight-year policy toward North Korea. Rather, he had pursued two diametrically
opposed policies during his tenure - one overly confrontational, the other
overly conciliatory. During its last two years, the Bush administration had, in
fact, engaged in the direct, bilateral diplomacy with Pyongyang that Obama now
advocated. Despite this Obama-like approach, however, North Korea continued its
policy of intransigence, non-compliance, and brinksmanship.
Back to the future ... with a twist
Yet, just a few months into his administration, Obama was astoundingly adopting
the policy and rhetoric of the first six years of the Bush administration which
he and the Democrats had lambasted so fiercely in the past. A few examples:
North Korea as a tyranny
Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice (January 2005): "There remain outposts of
tyranny - and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in
Cuba, and Burma [Myanmar] and North Korea.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (February 2009): "South Korea's prosperity
and democracy stood in stark contrast to the tyranny and poverty across the
border to the North."
Reaction
Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post (2007): "Rice had already made the
diplomatic impasse worse with a rookie misstep during her confirmation
hearings, when she referred to North Korea as an 'outpost of tyranny' just as
North Korea was looking for a signal of respect."
The New York Times (February 2009) described Clinton's Asia trip, during which
she called North Korea a tyranny, as "reshap[ing] diplomacy by tossing the
script" and "redefining the job of secretary of state, fusing the weighty
themes of regional security and nuclear proliferation with lighter encounters
[by] exploiting her megawatt celebrity."
North Korean impasse not a crisis
Secretary of State Colin Powell (December 2002 - in response to North Korea's
vow to reopen the Yongbyon reactor): "It is not a crisis, but it is a matter of
concern."
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (May 2009): "I don't think the North Korean
nuclear program represents a direct threat to the United States ... the Obama
administration did not consider the weapons tests of last week a 'crisis'."
Reaction
Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman (December 2002): "It is indeed a crisis for
which he blamed president Bush. 'The policy that the administration has
followed thus far has made a difficult situation into a dangerous one'."
Democratic Senator Tom Dashle (February 2003): Scolded Mr Bush for playing down
the threat from North Korea.
Insisting on North Korean preconditions prior to negotiations
Under secretary of state John Bolton (March 2004): The US "will not provide
inducements or reward the North Koreans to come back into compliance with their
international obligations."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (July 2009): "We do not intend to reward
North Korea just for returning to the table, nor do we intend to reward them
for actions they have already committed to taking."
Reaction
Democratic senators (January 2003): criticized Bush's refusal to promptly
resume negotiations with North Korea. Democratic Senator Carl Levin said the
Bush administration "should meet face to face with North Korea so as to prevent
any miscalculations".
Democratic Senator Tom Dashle (February 2003): urged Bush to "immediately
engage the North Koreans in direct talks".
Impact of North Korean proliferation
Bush (November 2006): "The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North
Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the
United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the
consequences of such action."
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (May 2009): "The transfer of nuclear weapons
or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered
a grave threat to the United States and its allies."
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
