Ryan of Tasty Manatees (great name for a blog) takes Glenn Kessler to task for this stink-bomb in the WaPo. Read both the original WaPo piece (basically a summary of Jack Pritchard’s account of his trip to North Korea) and Ryan’s fisking, but just to reprint the latter’s conclusion here:
I almost cannot bring myself to believe that a reporter for a major newspaper could allow himself to become such a tool for mass murdering dictators, let alone that the editors of that same major newspaper would provide print space for such obvious propaganda. However, Glenn Kessler is hardly original, there is precedent here.
Kessler’s path was tread many years before by the infamous Walter Duranty. Duranty was a New York Times reporter who reported back to the New York Times from the Soviet Union for a decade, including during Stalin’s genocidal man-made famine of 1932-33. Duranty was a loyal Stalinist and dutifully reported to American audiences that there was no starvation in the Soviet Union, even though it was pretty clear that he knew millions were being purposefully starved to death at the time. Entire towns were rubbed off the map under Stalin’s greasy thumb, and Duranty did his part by downplaying reports from more independent reporters with such pithy retorts as, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” Of course, the New York Times gave Duranty a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting from the Soviet Union.
Perhaps Glenn Kessler is working hard to get himself a Pulitzer.
Look, I really can’t be that shocked with the WaPo talking about bustling markets in Pyongyang — not with MBC doing cooking shows up North. Personally, I was more disgusted by the op-ed piece submitted to the NYT by Jack Pritchard himself, of which Barry of Barry Talks! gives his own insightful critique. One could only imagine the abject horror I felt as I read this:
American policy in North Korea is hardly better than American intelligence. At best it can be described only as amateurish. At worst, it is a failed attempt to lure American allies down a path that is not designed to resolve the crisis diplomatically but to lead to the failure and ultimate isolation of North Korea in hopes that its government will collapse.
Having a discussion with North Korea does not mean abandoning the multilateral framework agreed to in 1994. Nor does direct communications mean capitulating to North Korean demands. It simply means serious exploration of what is possible and acceptable to all parties.
This administration must step out from behind China’s diplomatic skirt and take the lead in resolving this crisis before Pyongyang creates a real nuclear deterrent. As it is now, North Korea is calling the shots.
The Bush administration needs to reassert itself ? but responsibly. It should appoint a North Korean policy coordinator of the stature and integrity of former Defense Secretary William Perry to bring sanity and adult supervision to the administration’s infighting.
Apparently, Pritchard didn’t read Ralph Cossa’s advice before going to Pyongyang:
Like earlier trips by Representative Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Don Gregg, a former ambassador to South Korea, the end result is likely to be counterproductive. At best, North Korea uses such trips to play rival American political factions against one another while also trying to drive a deeper wedge between the United States and its other dialog partners - South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - over how to proceed in dealing with North Korea.
.
The current delegation may also create false illusions in North Korea about alternative ways out of its current dilemma other than returning to the six-party talks, which it recently agreed to do “in principle” but not yet at any set date. It will also interfere with the efforts of the State Department diplomats whom the Bush administration has tasked with actually solving this problem.
.
Whether or not you agree with the Bush administration’s approach toward North Korea, it is clear that the United States and its partners are at a sensitive juncture in trying to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table while also maintaining one voice in demanding that there must be a “full, verifiable and irreversible” end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If all the Lewis delegation was going to do was to reinforce this message - as a recent European delegation did - at least it would do no harm. But if the end result is to make new suggestions - as Curt Weldon did, going as far as presenting his own plan for solving the crisis - this will complicate and could delay or undermine the careful diplomatic effort that has gotten us to where we are today.
.
As long as North Korea sees the opportunity to create more mischief, it is unlikely to sit down and negotiate away its nuclear weapons program. Creating new delays or diversions merely plays into the hands of those in Washington - and their numbers are strong and growing - who see no value in pursuing the diplomatic option in the first place. Private diplomacy, especially by those ill suited to perform such a task, is no substitute for the real thing.
One can only imagine the kind of glee Pritchard’s piece brought to all those hardworking people in the North Korean Foreign Ministry — oooo, here’s another excuse to dick around. And unfortunately, Cossa’s right — by going out and writing what he did, Pritchard has created opportunities for Pyongyang to delay and manipulate splits both within the Administration and between the U.S. and its “allies”, and in the end that will only strengthen the hands of Washington hardliners who want to start bombing. All he should have done is gone to North Korea, taken a look around, and reported what he saw back to the White House. What we didn’t need, at this juncture, is for him to go to the NYT and bitch (unjustifiably, I might add) about the Administration’s North Korea policy. Very unhelpful. Very unhelpful, indeed.
UPDATE: The Infidel (he’s back!) makes some interesting comments on Pritchard (among other things), as does Kirk at IMADTTS.
9 Comments
Isn’t Kessler the one who wrote the other day claiming the Bush had labeled Iraq and “imminent” threat? I usually don’t go for over the top rhetoric and likening him to Duranty is over the top. Duranty was a Commie sympathizer but I doubt that this guy is a Juche adherant. I don’t think one can simply blame him for having different opinions about N. Korea policy. But on reading your post, I think it actaully is not that far off the mark afterall.
Personally, I’m not going to come down too hard on Kessler — he was, after all, only summarizing what Pritchard had said. My disgust is with Pritchard himself — aside from the fact that I highly disagree with his comments on Bush’s North Korea policy, the way in which he went about voicing said comments was very unhelpful. I just took a look at the Chosun Ilbo’s Korean-language report on the NYT piece, so if the North Koreans haven’t picked up on this yet, they will now.
Why the hell get mad at Kessler or Pritchard? I don’t see anything inflamatory in his article. Pritchard has been to Pyeongyang before, but this time he (and the other delegates) saw a lot of changes — the power was on, the stores had a lot of goods on the shelves. So either North Korea is less of an economic basket case than it was a few years ago (as many have asserted in recent discussions around here) or else they have gotten better at keeping up appearances (possible, but unlikely in my wimpy opinion).
From their, it seems the point of Kessler and Pritchard was that North Korea is developing nukes and it needs to be dealt with firmly and swiftly… hardly a lefty, pro-communist position.
I think some “conservatives” around here getting carried away their press bias paranoia.
their there… spelling screw-ups galore.
Great piece and great site! The links to other pieces were interesting, and I’m glad to see people are actually concerned with Pritchard’s and Kessler’s little exercise.
I think many people might think I came down hard on Kessler. I think he’s been getting it pretty easy, considering. It’s not that the account Kessler reported was his, or even that he was reporting something so blatantly false. The basic reporting of an account of a guided tour through Pyongyang was probably true.
As in many things, it’s the context.
The North Koreans feel they are in a position of weakness in their negotiations with us. Right or wrong, they seem to feel we think the communist system is collapsing and they probably won’t be around in a few years. So, the masters of Pyongyang call up their good buddies from the last Administration’s diplomatic corps, and give him the Potemkin treatment.
“Look,” they say to Pritchard, “See how strong communism feeds the people and how perpetual the Party is.”
Pritchard dutifully gives the communists’ propaganda to his own friends in the Washington press corps, and Glenn Kessler picks it up. Kessler knows the claims are laughable, and that the supplied premise that the communists are strong and we should pay them off because they’re not going away is laughable. He, like everyone else, knows that the North is on edge, and that it may even be likely that they are analogous to Eastern Europe in 1989 (or not, but a possibility).
Instead of providing perspective to his readers, Kessler reports the North Korean propaganda line without any qualification whatsoever. With full knowledge that it is an attempt by the North Koreans to manipulate U.S. negotiators. With full knowledge that hundreds of thousands are dying and millions more are facing the same fate if the communists stay in control. With full knowledge that what he is writing is a denial of the truth.
The reason I used the Walter Duranty comparison is that Duranty’s minders perfected the technique the North Koreans used on Pritchard. Duranty didn’t see starvation in 1932-33 because he didn’t want to question the obviously arranged scenes that were presented to him. When evidence of their falsity and the true suffering of the people of the Soviet Union was force-fed to him, he balked at reporting it.
Kessler is getting off easy, any paper worth the ink used to print it would have fired him by now.
P.S. By the way, “John in Tokyo” is right, Kessler falsely attributed a statement to the Adminsitration, then went on to take some “liberties” with some quotes. Powerline blog has a detailed write-up on the piece. Again, a less-entrenched reporter would be looking for work right now.
I think the problem is — nobody is willing to say nothing effective can be done. Elected officials and the State Department don’t get paid to think that way, and it seems neither does the press. What is worse, the press and the people outside the administration (whether Bush or Clinton) like to pretend to people that either they have the answer to the problem or simply that the problem should be found - if the current administration would just get off its butt. Nothing is going to stop NK from getting its nuclear deterent, because there is no effective means to stop them. As long as China and South Korea and at times others are willing to keep North Korea alive, we can’t force them to change or collapse, and bombing and paying them off aren’t going to get things done either or come at too high a price. North Korea is thus in control of its fate to a large messure no matter what we do. All the talk in the world isn’t going to change these facts….
I appreciate the context, Ryan, but I still think you are discounting the fact that these folks saw Pyeongyang several years ago and are seeing it now and the two are quite different. This is more than a new coat of paint. It could very well be that the North’s “market reforms”, however marginal, have had an effect.
Then again, there have been yet another round of famine-watch calls coming from various aid groups this winter. So who knows what is going on up there.
I still think you are reading too much into his story. These guys (the writers) have tight deadlines and space considerations and have to move fast… then get edited fast.
Haisan, my biggest problem with Pritchard is that he went to the NYT (no deadline in his case) and aired a very public critique (in the NYT!) of the Administration’s North Korea policy right after a very public visit to North Korea. Frankly, I didn’t like it when Rep. Weldon did the same thing — and he’s a member of the GOP. Nor did I particularly like it when Congressional Republicans were giving President Clinton a tough time while he was in the middle of negotiations with the North Koreans, even if I did agree with the comments they were making. It’s difficult enough as it is negotiating with the North Koreans even without giving them potential fodder and/or reason to miscalculate.
BTW, I’ll be curious to see those reports on North Korea’s economic recovery. Personally, I believe that North Korea’s “market reforms” have been so marginal, and its economic collapse so severe, that improvements — if, in fact, they do exist — are simply foreign aid illusions. Still, I could be wrong — like you said, who knows what’s going on up there.
The only markets that seem to be on the rise in NK are the so-called farmer’s markets, which are in many cases synonymous with black markets, given the material they’re selling (e.g. hoarded food aid). Whether these markets, with their patchy and often-secretive nature, are contributing in some significant way to the larger economy of NK is, to put it mildly, debatable.
As for market “reforms”… I remain highly, highly skeptical. There’s little indication that projects along the lines of Shinuiju or the Najin-Sonbong Free Trade/Economic Zone have done much except act as magnets for flailing ineptitude and corruption.
Rule of thumb: Pyongyang is NOT an indicator of how the country as a whole is doing. It’s a Potemkin village writ large. It would be naive to view it as anything else.
Just my 25 won.
Kevin