Shockingly enough, former President Kim Dae-jung told lecture-goers in San Francisco that the U.S. needs to show “more flexibility” and offer Pyongyang “concrete rewards” (perhaps like US$500 million under the table?) in order to resolve the nuclear issue:
Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung urged the United States on Monday to show “more flexibility” to offer North Korea “concrete benefits” in return for the dismantlement of all nuclear weapons programs.
In an address to the Asia Foundation in San Francisco, Kim suggested that North Korea commit itself to a verifiable denuclearization and that the U.S., at the same time, give security assurances and ease the economic sanctions imposed on the impoverished North.
“The other nations in the six-party talks can take a firm stance only when the North, despite the rewards offered, refuses to abandon its nuclear ambition,” said the elderly statesman, who made the first visit to the U.S. since retiring in early 2003.
An ardent advocate of his trademark “sunshine policy” of engaging the reclusive North, Kim’s remarks came as a clear opposition to the voices of some American hardliners allegedly seeking measures to apply more pressure on North Korea, which is boycotting talks.
DJ made it clear where he believed the responsibility for the impasse lay:
While making a clear objection to any punitive measures, such as referring the case to the U.N. Security Council, which North Korea has threatened to accept as a “declaration of war,” Kim argued that it is the U.S. that is more responsible for the current stalemate.
“While the first-term Bush administration was wasting the past four years without active negotiations, North Korea walked out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), expelled international nuclear inspectors and has been developing nuclear weapons,” he said.
“The key might be very simple,” he added. “I believe this problem can surely be resolved if the U.S. ensures the rewards to the North in return for dismantlement.”
Kim also urged North Korea to return to negotiation table immediately. “It should have its say within the context of the six-party talks, where a give-and-take principle would be the basic formula for future negotiations.”
The elder statesman has been expressing frustration with the North, however:
“I myself cannot understand why North Korea acts like this,” he was quoted as telling Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon, who made a courtesy call before the trip. An official interpreted the remarks as Kim’s sad feelings about the North’s obstinacy.
I don’t know, DJ. Perhaps they just need to be rewarded more.
Sphere: Related Content
27 Comments
There oughtta be a law calling for Nobel Peace Prize recipients to have to keep their dictator-friendly mouths shut forever afterward.
Not to wish the same fate on DJ, but things have gotten a whole hell of a lot better since the lungs of the Nobel prize winner Arafat quit.
Reminds me of one of my favorites (Park Geun Hye!
Well, the real issue seems to me whether or not US can get any way to verify that NK actually do what they promise to do—that whole allowing US weapons inspectors to have unfettered access to the entire country thingie. Considering Kim Jong Il is crazier than Saddam Hussein, I can’t imagine this ever happening.
I mean, more carrots seems to have no effect. But more sticks also seem to have no effect. I don’t think the conservatives seriously think that KJI is going to blink and give US weapons inspectors unfettered access-I think they are just crossing their fingers and hoping KJI needs a coronary bypass surgery.
Can’t say that’s really so much worse a strategy than the good old half billion dollar tribute sun-shine approach, but sometimes it’s sorta comical watching the right-wingers and left-wingers bashing each other over whose strategy is less stupid.
Think of North Korea as a less treatable form of cancer and then categorize those who try to deal with it by: denial/faith healing (South Korea), amputation (US hawks), repeated therapy despite limited success of earlier treatrment (US doves).
Surprisingly, I wasn’t able to find any coverage of this in either the SF Chronicle or the SF Examiner. Fricking SF newspapers. *grumble*
I think DJ was in the U.S. because he did not want to be in Korea when the s** hit the fan(his lovechild came forward to say her mother got paid by DJ to keep hush-hush).
Actually, he paid one of his pal a lot of money to start a ghost company and this friend paid the “concubine”.
Sex sinks many men.
To those DJ or sunshine policy critics:
I am just so curious. If DJ or sunshine policy wasn’t the right way to do, what would be an alternative? I think that I already heard from Oranckay about it from the entry above, but other than him, what do you guys suggest for Korean government or the U.S. government to do? Let me hear you!
June,
The current US administration’s policy is effectively, delay delay delay. Which is to say, ignore NK. Even if they managed to get a 6 party talk going, I really doubt that would lead to unfettered access to NK, or any real desired result.
The problem I have with KDJ/NMH government is the degree they are willing to sacrifice/compromise on NK refugee issues. Their stance is that any support of NK refugee will jeapardize teh overall “sunshine” strategy, and therefore, SK government must ignore it’s own constitution and bar Korean citizens of northern heritage from entering the country at any and at all costs. Unlike some die hard right-wingers here, I really don’t care all that much about nuclear issues, which I don’t see a solution for in anycase–this is of course, pretty much the only issue that Americans really care about far as NK is concerned.
Why can’t “sunshine” extend to NK people hiding out in China? I don’t think KJI really have any choice but to accept the good graces of SK in anycase, and the acceptance of few thousand more NK refugees into South Korea wouldn’t really jeapardize the sunshine approach in the long run. In this regard, even countries that talk tough about human rights, (aka United States, Japan) has been appalling. I seem to remember something called teh NKHRA, but it seems to be a piece of masturbatory paper.
I mean let’s face it. Forget the hypocritical nature of US, Japan, China. SK has a responsiblity to it’s OWN CITIZENS to protect them as chartered under it’s constitution, which Roh Moo Hyun/Kim Dae Jung, has decided does not extend to some under-menschen portion of the Korean population. If SK accepts 3000 NK refugees in China (which is about double what they accepted last year) what can KJI possibly do? Stop the all important Geumgang project? KJI really isn’t in a position to haggle. If Seoul wants to give them bales of rice, KJI really isn’t in a position to say, “we will not accept this rice, until you stop accepting NK refugees.” I am not even asking for ALL the NK refugees to be accepted. I am asking for just double the number each year. I suspect that most NK refugees would rather live in their own hometown than go to a very foreign SK.
It is crazy to compromise over certain things. South Koreans talk about unity, but the fact remains that South Koreans are discriminatory against North Korean people. If No Moo Hyun is serious about stop demonizing North KOrean people as wolves, then he has to be stronger in fighting discimination against North Korean people–especially North Korean refugees.
My problem with the sunshine approach, is that there is simply too much sunshine on the wrong people and too much clouds over the meek. You don’t have to be a pro-bush right-winger to see that the sunshine approach, at the very least, need some mending.
DJ’s Sunshine Policy aimed, as per the Aesop’s fable, to melt North Korea’s Cold War mentality with goodwill and largesse. It might have worked over time (DJ spoke of 20 years and avoided serious talk of any unworkable united federation formula as well as uttering any provocative truths, such as: “The Cold War is over and you lost, Norkies”). I suspect unspoken was the assumption that North Korea would be absorbed by the South, albeit at a time in the distant future.
North Korea not only failed to reciprocate the goodwill, frequently biting the hands that fed it, it eventually coopted the whole process — perhaps correctly predicting that the 3-8-6 generation waiting to take power after DJ would be easily manipulated by naked appeals to nationalism and unity.
If I were in the Blue House, I would back the Virtual Wanderer’s call for a no-nonsense stance on refugees and on human rights and I’d be willing to freeze all projects that help North Korea (except targeted food or medical aid) until the nuclear issue is resolved and until Pyongyang deals with Seoul’s government directly (instead of mainly dealing, as it prefers now, with loopy left or patriotic stooge groups and other unofficial organizations.) I would also stop all actions and statements that give North Korea even the remotest hope it can divide Seoul, Tokyo or Washington on issues of concern. I would fire the current Unification Minister and all of his team, in order to refocus that lapsed body on real Unification.
I might quietly — not publicly — offer Kim Jong-il and his family amnesty from prosecution or exile in the South.
Yes, the South should not compromise on human rights issues, and should seriously rethink some of the aid that it gives.
But any projects that expose North Koreans to South Koreans, South Korea, or any other part of the (relatively) free world should be continued and encouraged. The best way to bring down the Northern government is to allow people in the North to discover just how failed their system is.
I will grant that the North Korean government does not want its citizens to have access to free information. But if it is truly being forced to open its economy, this will be inevitable.
Bluejeans, I think the people in the North are well aware their system is a failure–the historian Andrei Lankov has written a lot on how porous the border has become, with cell phones from China and videos of S.K. dramas available. They can see the wealth of the South and draw their own conclusions. However, the Roh administration wants to pretend that Kim Jongil will eventually “come around” to open the country, which is absurd–it’s suicide for him. The U.S. approach might be unfocused or whatever (and we really don’t know, because all details of the “package” they offered the North last June were not disclosed) but obviously you don’t make progress with a nuclear-armed dictatorship by simply throwing money at it the way Roh and Kim have been doing.
Gee, this is getting to be a habit. Once again Michael echos my thoughts. I would only add that these labels of “right-wing”, “left-wing” are meaningless and I distrust those that resort to them. One could just say that the “Sunshine” idea was a bad one that has nothing to show for all of that appeasement.
June comment: “I think that I already heard from Oranckay about it from the entry above, but other than him, what do you guys suggest for Korean government or the U.S. government to do? Let me hear you!”
I didn’t mean to say that there aren’t any alternatives. I meant to say DJ isn’t a special case. He’s a favorite of armchair expat critics, but the people who would lead the country instead of the likes of KDJ or Roh, the human “alternatives,” aren’t that different so I think cirticism that seeks to be wise should IMHO be better focused, less arbitrary prejudiced.
R. Elgin, I even echoed my own thoughts by posting twice
(Sorry Marmot)But I think Roh and Kim have set a bad precedent by remaining silent on the North’s human rights abuses. Maybe it’s the pendulum swinging to the other extreme from the bad old days when the South demonized North Koreans, but certainly they could address reality on occasion. Also, the “human alternatives,” if that refers to Park Geun Hye, have at least spoken out against the North’s human rights abuses, so she apparently has a conscience. Roh and his pals, on the other hand…
Why is it the US has to ‘try harder’ and make concessions? Granted, maybe discussion of a peace treaty to end the Korean War could be on the table (at 6-party talks), but it seems that the Norks have really made few substantial concessions on anything since the Sunshine Policy got rolling. Whereas SK and the US have given millions (billions) in aid and other concessions to help the Norks out.
The Norks have done almost nothing, besides a few showy things like joining in sporting events that someone else pays for and letting a few hundred old people visit their relatives. The Norks have made no concessions in terms of opening up or in reducing their military or anything else substantial.
The Norks have made no concessions in terms of opening up or in reducing their military or anything else substantial.
kaes??ng doesn’t fall under the category of opening up? not even a little?
you are right, though, that the north ought to try a little harder to meet halfway.
Appeasement will never work. The US might offer the north say ?¼ what the war in iraq has cost and NK might accept but for how long? How long would it take them to come back and make more demands? I think the DJ lost alot of credibility when it came out that he paid to meet with KJI-no wonder the guy came out to the airport-for that kind of money I would too. I wish they would take away his prize-it was given on false pretense. The US doesn’t know what to do so they have done nothing. Any action against NK might trigger action against Taiwan by China aside from any action they decide to take in NK. I agree with the opinions that have been expressed-SK should focus on saving as many NK escapees as it possibly can and on preventing further human rights issues in the north. The rest of it seems to be a Mexican stand off. NK will not give up the nukes and the US doesn’t want to pay them to be quite. SK doesn’t want to anger NK. I wonder what it would cost to buy KJI into leaving NK and ‘retiring’ with his family to one of the mansions he is reported to own in Switzerland. I agree with Michael-Roh seems more intent on making life hard on the prostitutes here than he does in dealing with much more pressing human rights issues for Koreans points northward.
As an critic who considers herself “better focused, less arbitrary prejudiced” (sic), I support the sunshine policy and wish DJ would stfu.
The North’s goal is to turn public sentiment in the South against the US. Its hopes for long-term survival, and eventual hegemony over the entire peninsula, hinge on it.
DJ, by claiming the US is at fault for the breakdown in the six-party talks, only helps the North in this sense, hindering the whole process.
I don’t think the US should give a whole bunch of money to North Korea. I don’t think they should give ANY money to NK, as things currently stand. Let them starve in the dark.
But I do think that they should recognize the country, send an ambassador, and encourage it to trade what it has (legitimately) for what it can get. It feels good not to talk to people we don’t like, but is that the policy that will get us what we want from them? (I guess you could legitimately ask the question if there is any policy that would get us what we want from them)
The NK regime doesn’t want to change and will try to prevent people from becoming politically freer. I believe its existence is predicated upon a hostility to the US and the West. They are trying to divide South Korea internally as well as from any allies it might have. Even if the rest of the world things the South Koreans have already won, I don’t think the North Koreans think that.
But contact is the thing that could change the society from within. Not the government, but the people. Let them compare their society with the West’s. Pretty obvious to me, anyway, which is better. I bet it would be just as obvious to them.
DJ is right in that Bush sabotaged whatever good will was built up in the last days of Clinton. That might have led nowhere. We’ll never know. He’s wrong when he says that throwing money at NK will improve things.
Funny how DJ and others criticize Bush’s incoherent policy on N Korea while talking in positive terms about Clinton’s.
People seem to downplay what really made Clinton’s approach work (at least in the short term). Clinton made it clear he was willing to smack KJI with a very big stick.
I really wonder if DJ supports NK communism. I can’t think of any historical precedent that show appeasement works. Is he delusional or a follower if the Kim Il-Sung clan?
I do think June does make a good point. There are just way too many hot-headed people who say, “No More Appeasement” but back pedal at the prospect of war. I mean, there are all these, “this is asian people’s problem” just like they said, “this is a mideastern people’s problem.” When Germany invaded Poland, “this is a European problem.” When Japan attacked China, “this is asian people’s problem.”
The irony is that the US government realizes this is a global problem and tries to solve it through a multi-lateral approach, while SK government treats this as a “American” problem. Just proves that mental retardation is a global phenomena.
Mac:
“Funny how DJ and others criticize Bush?€™s incoherent policy on N Korea while talking in positive terms about Clinton?€™s.
People seem to downplay what really made Clinton?€™s approach work (at least in the short term). Clinton made it clear he was willing to smack KJI with a very big stick.”
I don’t understand this statement at all. Whenever did Clinton indicate this? When he sent Madeleine Albright to drink toasts with KJI?
Maybe you mean the “crisis” that occurred between the Clinton administration and NorK, in Clinton’s first term, as regards NorK’s nuclear program (?) That was “resolved” by Jimmy Carter’s surprise visit — but remember Kim Il Sung was still alive then and running the show.
Supposedly the US was “ready to go to war” back then. I doubt it, I think what is meant when people say this is that Clinton was listening to his advisors who were then telling him that it was politically importantand expedient for him to “appear” t to take a hard line. And of course he did this without consulting and coordinating closely with ROK, a key factor in beginning the current strain in the US-ROK alliance IMO.
But the same considerations that now dictate against any US preemptive strike on NorK nuclear facilities were in existence (and essentially the same) back then. So I just don’t see how anyone can say with a straight face that Clinton was “straining at the bit” to “smack anybody down” — at any time.
It took years, and endless massacres by the Serbian nationalists in Bosnia and Kosovo, for him to finally take any US military action there — and even then, he refused to risk any US ground troops involvement.
Clinton just had no taste for using US military power, which was certainly obvious to any other nation in the world that watched him (and of course they watch us extremely closely).
Now you can take any view you want about this, either pro or con (certainly much of the world was “pro”, they loved him for it, as they felt it gave them a veto power over what the US could do. Witness the standing ovations he got at the UN).
But — it seems to me an undeniable fact.
A big Part of the reason Clinton was so slow to react in Bosnia/Kosovo was fierce resistance from the republicans.
Make that House Republicans and you’re correct, Mac. But Senate Republicans not only supported the President in those interventions, but actually forced him to act in the case of Bob Dole’s cricitisms of Clinton’s inaction in Bosnia.
Cloud– Indeed.
The more libertarian Republicans (like former economics professor Dick Armey) and the isolationist paleoconservatives were very lukewarm on Bosnia– just like they were pretty lukewarm on Iraq, incidentally.
The theocons, neocons, and many of the traditionalists and fusionist conservatives (such as National Review) generally supported action in Bosnia, at least lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia. Same groups that supported the Iraq action.
Main difference with Iraq is that more of the realists supported it as something more in line with US strategic interests, and more of the leftish idealists opposed it as… something that too directly could aid selfish US strategic interests.
One of the biggest of the many disgraces regarding the whole Bosnia mess is how the rest of NATO refused to act on their own to confront the Serbs in their own backyard! Does anyone else remember that the British and French moved substantial ground and air forces in there but then failed to act to stop the massacres?
I don’t have a mental timeline in my brain but if memory serves this went on for years between 92 and 95. The culmination of this was the infamous massacre at Sbrneica (sp?) where the Dutch UN battalion abjectly surrendered in return for their own safe evacuation, abandoning the Muslims to summary execution.
This is why I carry on here to the probable irritation of some and the amusement of others. Seems to me the whole rest of the West (with some exceptions) has become a bunch of adolescents who are happy to leave their own external defense to the US while indulging themselves in tantrums about the way it’s done.
Which is another reason why I want to pull out our ground troops from ROK. It’d serve the same purpose as a bucket of cold water in the face, not just for ROK but also to the rest of the West as well.
Here’s another bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my view:
http://jetiranger.tripod.com/B.....id=1077733
Written by GI Korea, a blog written by a US soldier stationed in Korea; many of you are no doubt already familiar with it.
apuesta pagina web
You may find it interesting to check some helpful info dedicated to codigo fuente ruleta
winning wizards
You may find it interesting to take a look at some relevant information about tisch