You know, I’m much warmer now than I used to be on the whole “dragging North Korea into the family of nations” thing, mostly on account that I don’t believe anyone is really prepared to do what would be required in order to dispose North Korea into the dustbin of history. That being said, I wonder about things like this:
So can anything be done to help North Koreans? Yes, if liberals stop ceding the issue to conservative Christians. Ultimately, the solution to the nuclear standoff is the same as the solution to human rights abuses: dragging North Korea into the family of nations, as we did with Maoist China and Communist Vietnam.
OK, aside from the fact that I think North Korea is a very, VERY different place from either Maoist China or Communist Vietnam, i.e., the political economy of the North doesn’t lend itself as easily to change as did those of the latter two nations, I’m not sure if we can call China and Vietnam two successful examples of international human rights efforts in action.
Might I also point out that it wasn’t the liberals who “dragged,” so to speak, China into the family of nations. That was a conservative thing, and it does point to one possible advantage the Bush administration has should it decide to come to some sort of “arrangement” with the North. That is, Bush has the conservative credentials to pull something like that off without being slammed as soft on the commies, although he’ll definitely come in for criticism from certain quarters of his own party. That being said, should his administration come up with a REAL deal — one that’s both verifiable and built to last — he might just be able to sell it.
Sphere: Related Content
8 Comments
your analysis is bang on, marmot. particularly regarding Bush’s ability to sell the deal. that’s the infuriating part for those of us who can’t stand the man and his administration, and who believe that he’s really screwed up the DPRK file.
for a long time we’ve questioned that decision to drop the clinton admin’s engagement plan, for all the reasons we’re all familiar with. those “credientials” you write about stem from his “hardline” stance, if i can call it that.
bottom line: if his team succeeds (we’re so far away from that but only an asshole would hope that his team fails to validate their beliefs) then you just have to give credit where credit is due.
Hmm.. last thursday, China announces that they will float (or at least raise the value of) the yuan.
let the conspiracy theorists discuss!!
Much as it galls me, I’m forced to agree with much of what Bush administration critics say about his DPRK policy during his first term first inauguration.
It now looks in the last few days like we’re going to be “nice” to the Dear Leader (calling him “Mr.”, no more axis of evil, etc etc). All of this could have been done starting back in 2001 (instead of reverting to a pre-1992 posture, as the administration (over the objection of Powell) did by default).
The key is the ROK and how the ROK’s posture toward the North has fundamentally changed (IM0). Since ROK is determined to engage with the North no matter what, we should simply do the same (except ROK should be the ones to “take the lead” and assume all the risk).
The place to put “pressure” is on the arrogant government and citizens of the ROK and their refusal to acknowledge the gross human rights abuses inflicted on their northern cousins. Yangban has a current posting echoing the position of the Heritage foundation, arguing that focused “engagement” with the north while simultaneously pressuring them on human rights is a perfectly viable strategy. Couldn’t agree more.
http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyi.....ge_fo.html
I still hear the echo from Paul H.’s statements. The ROK seems quite concerned about intervention from China, thus they feel a desperate need, for several reasons, to get closer to the North since they feel the risk is greater to not engage them.
There is an article in the NY Times with answers from Mr. Kristoff and Mr. Pritchard on North Korea here.
Paul H. wrote:The place to put ?pressure?? is on the arrogant government and citizens of the ROK and their refusal to acknowledge the gross human rights abuses inflicted on their northern cousins. Yangban has a current posting echoing the position of the Heritage foundation, arguing that focused ?engagement?? with the north while simultaneously pressuring them on human rights is a perfectly viable strategy. Couldn?t agree more.You mean like the United States does with China?
It should happen, but it probably won’t. While Democrats whined about human rights in China for years and years, the Republicans and eventually Clinton decided that the U.S. shouldn’t go through an annual debate over human rights in China every time Most-Favored Nation status was up for renewal.
Dollars are a greater draw than human rights. The Americans’ primary focus on North Korea will be economic, not humanitarian, just like it appears to be with the South Koreans’.
However, that does not mean that engagement is not the answer or even the solution. Opening up North Korea economically and politically will lead to a loosening of Pyongyang’s grip on its people, as the law of unintended consequences seeps in. Isolation means that Pyongyang controls all and for all courses of action in every aspect of North Koreans’ lives there is usually no other option than Pyongyang’s way.
and a little currency rate change as a sweetner could coax the mighty giant…
you need a subscription but Paul Marshall and Scott Pollock have a piece in today’s WSJ: “Putting Human Rights in the Six Party Talks”
BTW, Pritchard Kristoff has a nice interview QA posted on NYT regarding NK. I’m too lazy to cut paste link. (free subscription required. Unless you are evil like me and use http://www.bugmenot.com, but you all knew that. *wink* *wink*)