UPDATE: Please, PLEASE read Oranckay’s take on Lefkowitz’s cold reception–it would seem the special envoy isn’t completely blameless. Attending a street rally criticizing the policies of the host government is probably NOT an appropriate thing to do, regardless of the cause. I’d have been pissed if it was Chung attending a rally in D.C. criticizing Bush administration policies toward North Korea.
ORIGINAL POST: Unification Minister Chung Dong-young continues to prove wrong my earlier predictions that no one could be worse than his predecessor, Jeong Se-hyun (Korean version here).
Expect Chung to get a very, VERY chilly reception next time he visits the United States. If there is a next time, that is.
99 Comments
This administration continues to display its ineptness. What exactly have they accomplished? For Korea’s sake, I hope they don’t damage the relationship with the US too much before they’re unceremoniously turfed out of office in 2007. If by some miracle they got back in, the alliance could suffer irreparably (if it hasn’t already).
For Korea’s sake, I hope they don’t damage the relationship with the US too much before they’re unceremoniously turfed out of office in 2007.
Amen.
If by some miracle they got back in, the alliance could suffer irreparably (if it hasn’t already).
People make a big deal out the “anti-American” card in 2002, but the real factor in their winning may have been the succesful use of regional politics to gather votes and the nearly universal disapproval of Lee Hoichang. Specifically, pandering to the Ch’ungch’?ng (chungcheong) region by promising the prestige of the national capital was what probably put them over the top. The next left candidate won’t be able to get away with that. Unl
Face the facts. Chung is one of the most powerful people in Korea. Lefkowitz is a nobody in the US. Chung is a favorite to become president, and is close to both the current and previous Korean presidents. Why should he meet with some hack who’s been working to undo his government’s policies?
Lefkowitz may have Bush’s ear, then again maybe not. I’ve never heard of the guy, except as another shirll voice in the chorus of North Korea criticism. The time has long passed when every loser sent from the US government would be given a red-carpet treatment in South Korea.
If the US had sent secretary of state Rice or another senior person, maybe they would be allowed to meet with the most powerful politician in Korea upon demand. Imagine some Korean hack political appointee showing up in Washington, criticizing American policies and demanding to meet with Bill Frist or Dick Cheney. What a joke.
By the way, did you forget the frosty receptions Presidents Roh and Kim received in the US? Do you take a snub to some political appointee more seriously than the disrespectful treatment of a nation’s leader? But I forget, even a US janitor is superior to a South Korean president in the eyes of the right-wing here in Korea.
What Americans seem to hate about Chung is that he has the confidence to stand up for his own country, rather than wait slavishly for the US to decide Korea’s fate. Contrast that to Park Geun-hye, last seen in the lapdog’s chair next to the US ambassador at the human rights conference.
To begin with, I wonder if the intention was to make Chung look worse than he already does by translating ‘?? ?? ???’ as ‘not in my league.’ Chung does just fine making himself look bad, but the statement in Korean was stated rather matter-of-factly and is by itself not the insult implied by the “not in my league.”
If one wants to talk about insults and inappropriate behavior, try Lefkowitz’s appearance at a candelight protest/prayer vigil.
Say what one will about Roh’s gov’t and its inappropriate behavior when it comes to US-Korea relations, but I can’t recall anything as unbecoming as Lefkowitz’s decision to speak to a public assembly in front of Seoul city hall.
Chung is hardly a “favorite to become president”. Most Koreans will not vote for the man and rightly so. I have heard not a single, average person talk of voting for him yet, which strikes me as an unspoken judgement upon the man.
Lefkowitz may not be the most important person in the U.S., but then again neither is the Ambassador to Korea; but in Korea they are both senior officials of U.S. Korea policy, i.e. VIPs, and should be treated accordingly.
Another important difference is that U.S. senior administration officials are important on a world-wide level; Korea has no officials “in that league,” so to speak. The reality is that Korea is no where nearly as important to the U.S. as the U.S. is to Korea. An apples/oranges comparison.
The comparison of Bush meeting Roh/Kim is again a very inept and clumsy one; Bush met them, while Chung snubbed Lefkowitz.
Lefkowitz is a political hack who has no foreign policy credentials. The law that created the North Korea Special Envoy position calls for someone of “international stature”, but somehow a total crony received the position. A very thorough analysis of Lefkowitz’s appointment is available at:
China Matters. He is not important anywhere outside of Washington, where he has been a staunch dirty tricks operative for years.
Americans may believe that they are more important than Koreans and everyone else in the world. You may be rudely surprised if you ever talk to some of the billions of non-American, non-VIPs in this world, who think they are just as important as Americans. Some of these people have the strange notion that they should decide their own policies rather than have “important” Americans decide on their behalf.
“The reality is that Korea is no where nearly as important to the U.S. as the U.S. is to Korea.”
Certainly true. That is why the US is wrong to oppose South Korea’s policy towards North Korea, since the issue is a sideshow for the US, while a matter of life and death for Koreans.
Bush did meet Roh and Kim, but disrespected them and did not give them the treatment they deserved as leaders of important allied nations. Bush publicly humiliated Kim Dae-Jung after their meeting in 2001, and met in Washington with Roh Moo-Hyun for only 30 minutes.
The current US brinksmanship towards North Korea is partly to help the Hanara into power. A successful peaceful settlement of the North Korean problem would be a tremendous boost for the progressives, while a continuing stalemate would aid a “reliable” right-wing government to take over.
That’s funny, G Travan. I was just thinking that the North Koreans would prefer to decide their own fate than have snotty Eurolectuals cast their vote by proxy.
Lefkowitz is a political hack who has no foreign policy credentials.
While attending the Seoul Summit, I met several people from Washington who said that the young and inexperienced Lefkowitz being a cousin of Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, something mentioned in the China Matters link you gave, was an open secret.
The law that created the North Korea Special Envoy position calls for someone of “international stature”, but somehow a total crony received the position.
Who are the prominent human rights activists on the right? I think a non-partisan choice of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has “represented” the Bush administration in the past, would have been a better choice.
“That’s funny, G Travan. I was just thinking that the North Koreans would prefer to decide their own fate than have snotty Eurolectuals cast their vote by proxy.”
Actually, I’m American, and have no more or less snot than the next guy.
“Lefkowitz is a political hack who has no foreign policy credentials.”
You seem to be a bit hazy on the position. He’s been involved with the UNHCR since 1990. He’s now appointed in a what? Human Rights position. It’s not like a trade or security ? it’s about being an advocate for freedoms in North Korea. Regardless of your opinion, when he’s appointed to a position that is in fact important to U.S. Korean policy, that makes him important to South Korea. It’s just the way things work.
“Americans may believe that they are more important than Koreans and everyone else in the world.”
Your attempt at throwing out that red herring is so predictable ? but I actually said that, ‘The reality is that Korea is no where nearly as important to the U.S. as the U.S. is to Korea.’ It’s not politically correct, just correct.
“You may be rudely surprised if you ever talk to some of the billions of non-American, non-VIPs in this world, who think they are just as important as Americans… [blah, blah, blah].”
Tip: if you don’t invent things for me to say, you don’t have to debate it.
“… the US is wrong to oppose South Korea’s policy towards North Korea, since the issue is a sideshow for the US, while a matter of life and death for Koreans.
I don’t think you get the ‘why’ of why the U.S. is in the Pacific/Asia. The U.S. has an interest in the stability of the region and is focused on the big picture ? not on being afraid of offending the DPRK. And incase you didn’t notice, the South Korean government is completely ignoring human rights in the DPRK in favor of appeasement, which is an enabling and destabilizing factor.
“Bush publicly humiliated Kim Dae-Jung after their meeting in 2001, and met in Washington with Roh Moo-Hyun for only 30 minutes.”
How soon you forget, or perhaps you never knew. Kim tried to speak for the U.S. in that he made NK promises about what U.S. policy would be, and what Bush would do. Kim was a moron to do that. And did you happen to watch even five minutes of Roh’s campaign in 2002? It was an anti-U.S. hatefest. Roh is lucky he was even allowed to visit Bush.
“The current US brinksmanship towards North Korea…”
That’s about as far as I need to read, dong-mu.
“Actually, I’m American, and have no more or less snot than the next guy.’
How about crap?
Poor Korea. Poor world. US hegemons and hyper powers crushing it. Poor Korea. Can’t decide its own fate on its own (Juche Forever!!)
I am really enjoying the scenery these days.
It is really nice to see people like G_Tavern come out howling at — what — calling the North a criminal regime?
God forbid!!
Only poor South Koreans have lives at stake, don’t you know…..Roh said it himself right after getting elected…
Which means not only should the US speak nice words about Kim Jong Il and help solidify the non-unification of the Korean peninsula by making sure his regime keeps his horrible nation as far away from the potential collapse as possible….
…..the US should also never dare to address “alleged” drug smuggling, illegal technology transfer, money laundering, and such…
How dare the US interfer with South Korean policy!!! — by addressing such matters.
Poor South Korea…..
5,000 years of outside oppression…..continuing to this very day….
If only wise leaders like the anti-Unification Minster could have more power — more power to stand up to the bully boy neocons in the White House……
Chung Chung he’s our man, if he can’t do it………..well…..somebody ought to give him more power……..
He’s the righteous one!!
He’s the man speaking for Peace!!!
He’s the man speaking for Unification!!!
South Korea by South Korea’s power!!
Juche!!
It has worked such wonders for the North….
Richardson’s comments still seem very arrogant and chauvinistic. I’m still convinced that he views Americans and their government as somehow inherently superior to everybody else. Many Koreans share this viewpoint as well.
If Richardson believes in the shocking proposition that every person in this world is equally important, despite the power of their government, then I am happy to hear it, and apologize for misconstruing his remarks about “important American VIPs” signifying an overall belief in American superiority.
“Kim tried to speak for the U.S. in that he made NK promises about what U.S. policy would be, and what Bush would do.”
Actually, Secretary of State Colin Powell had publicly stated that the Bush administration would continue the Clinton policy of engagement with North Korea. Bush did an about-face right after meeting Kim Dae-Jung.
In any case, it would be proper for the US to seriously take advice from South Korean leaders about American policies towards North Korea, instead of directly contradicting South Korea at every opportunity. The right-wing in the US began undermining Clinton’s 1994 deal from day one, and now they are having a field day antagonizing North Korea at every turn.
You don’t really believe that the Bush administration give’s a rat’s behind about human rights, do you? Why are they so friendly with China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, but hell-bent on wiping out North Korea? As for stability, provoking North Korea constantly is a funny way of seeking stability and peace.
The simple truth is that there was some hope of a peaceful deal on the North Korean nuclear issue in September. The neocons dispatched their hatchet men Vershbow and Lefkowitz to destroy any hopes of success in the 6 party talks by publicly making provocative statements about North Korea’s “criminal regime”, etc.
What you think of me doesn’t matter; the truth of this my statement does, ’The reality is that Korea is no where nearly as important to the U.S. as the U.S. is to Korea.’ Nothing has changed that.
I’m saying how thing are, not dancing around issues with PC terminology, which many of said PC mindset take for arrogance. It is not, it is just reality. Case in point: you seem to be confusing a person’s inherent worth as a human being for their importance as an official in a government. Get beyond the PC rubbish ? in the context we are speaking in, various rankings of government officials - yes, some people are more important than others, and there is nothing wrong with saying so.
”Actually, Secretary of State Colin Powell had publicly stated that the Bush administration would continue the Clinton policy of engagement with North Korea. Bush did an about-face right after meeting Kim Dae-Jung.”
Not exactly on the first part, and wrong on the second. The U.S. said there would be no change while a policy review was underway, which is different from what you say although you include a grain of truth. Second, KDJ implied/promised deliverables on U.S. policy to KJI ? a major no-no for any nation.
”In any case, it would be proper for the US to seriously take advice from South Korean leaders about American policies towards North Korea, instead of directly contradicting South Korea at every opportunity. “
KDJ would never need to be contradicted if he had not far overstepped himself. But tends to be the result when someone attempts to speak for someone else.
Depends on what you mean by ‘take seriously.’ Listen to it, yes. Implement if useful, yes. But the problem is that the SK approach and ‘advice’ is actually counterproductive to the problem at hand. Serious advice would be taken seriously; so far the South Koreans have not been able to produce a policy on this that can be taken seriously.
”The right-wing in the US began undermining Clinton’s 1994 deal from day one, and now they are having a field day antagonizing North Korea at every turn.”
North Korea engaging in nuclear programs after the 1994 Agreed Framework is what undermined the deal. See; http://www.dprkstudies.org/doc......html#1994
For anything you can come up with on this (details, not generalizations) that you think was a deal-breaker for the North Koreans, I can show you where you are incorrect.
“You don’t really believe that the Bush administration give’s a rat’s behind about human rights, do you? Why are they so friendly with China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, but hell-bent on wiping out North Korea? As for stability, provoking North Korea constantly is a funny way of seeking stability and peace.”
Yes, the Bush administration and American in general are concerned about human rights. Otherwise we could just leave it to the UNHCR and watch. Why do you think China and Saudi have been lashing out at the U.S. over human rights? B/c the U.S. has made public statements about their records. The same with Pakistan. Just as the U.S. is being public about North Korea’s record, the difference being North Korea’ is by far worse (the others are definitely not in the same ‘league’ with North Korea in this department) and North Korea reacts much more vocally. It is not black and white, there are degrees, and North Korea pretty much defines the hellish end of the scale.
Also, you are confusing human rights issues with proliferation issues; those are different things.
”The simple truth is that there was some hope of a peaceful deal on the North Korean nuclear issue in September…”
Very naive. The only way for there to be a “deal” is for North Korea to give up all its nukes, period. The North Koreans have known this all along, as has anyone else with a brain who can read the U.S. position. If you think some chatter on human rights destroyed the possibility of a deal, then you have not read the North Korean demands (i.e., rx power plants b/f giving up nukes, etc.).
Many of us (bloggers/etc.) predicted this as soon as news of the talks came out; it’s not rocket science (or tea leaf reading). There will be no real progress until Kim Jong-il is out of office, or if some other major factor changes (none have ? SK continues to enable NKs policy). He is more concerned with his regime that with his people, and there is no evidence that that has changed. If a million plus dead of starvation won’t do it, nothing will.
“If Richardson believes in the shocking proposition that every person in this world is equally important, despite the power of their government”
Hey GTravan, you’re right. I’m important too, aren’t I? Hell, why can’t I have a meeting with President Bush? My opinions are just as valuable as Lefkowitz’s..after all he’s no one special, just the representative of the president of - I know it pains you to acknowledge this - the most powerful nation on this Earth. My relative unimportance in the grand scheme of things shouldn’t affect who will listen to me, right? We’re all “equally important” after all. Keep your rhetorical red herring to yourself. Schmuck.
Or at least keep it between you and your fellow traveler, eurolectual, coffee house latte sipping, bran muffin eating, stalinist state sympathizing amigos.
I love partisan hackery
Though I DDO think Carly could use a few bran muffins to help his colon unpinch if he thinks driking lattes is some sort of crime.
You may wish to read Oranckay’s post on this subject–linked to the update above. I still think Chung’s an ass, but Lefkowitz’s behavior appears to have left much to be desired. He’s not a civic activist, but a high-ranking U.S. gov’t official, and he needs to act the part.
What\’s more \”unbecoming\” behavior, Lefkowitz\’s appearance at that rally or Roh\\\’s secretary for civil affairs going around to churches beforehand to \”ask members to refrain from participating in the vigil”?
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....10013.html
Which is worse–direct gov\’t pressure on people not to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly, or the official of another gov\’t addressing a rally?
Also, what exactly should Lefkowitz do to get his message out if his royal highness Chung won\’t grant him an audience, with whatever linguistic turn of phrase he used?
It’s not a question of what’s worse. Of course, having Roh’s secretary go around asking civic groups not to participate is a shitty thing to do. But that’s neither here nor there. It’s still inappropriate for a U.S. government official to attend a street rally criticizing the policies of the host government. Period.
Mr. Marmot, the behavior of Roh\’s secretary falls on the very shitty end of the scale to me. Yes, Lefkowitz\’ action was inappropriate, but I respectfully disagree about what\’s worse.
I think both G Travan and Richardson make some reasonable points.
The Roh-Chung team and the Bush administration have been letting ideology get in the way of sitting down and working out a workable, unified solution that would be palatable to both sides. And that is why nothing is working.
And I agree with Marmot, it is not Lefkowitz’s role to play activist, particularly given how the North Korean human rights issue has been painted as merely a pretext of the Bush Administration for something as drastic as military action. In other words, the time was for Koreans (and there were plenty) to be running with the NK human rights issue, not for a controversial Bush Administration official to continue drumming on it.
Governor Bill Richardsom would have been a much better choice for Special Envoy on North Korea (unless the Bush administration is planning to use him for something bigger).
I agree it\’s not Lefkowitz\’s role to play activist, but I\’m appalled at how the Roh administration not only sidesteps addressing N.K.\’s human rights conditions but actively tries to keep others from speaking out, as with the rally. Then for people here to make a value judgment on Lefkowitz\’ actions just struck me as a little disingenuous when the Roh regime is far, far more out of the int\’l mainstream on the issue. That\’s why I was contrasting gov\’t officials in dealing with the same issue.
Also agree Richardson would be a great choice, but maybe being a Democrat has something to do with his not getting the job…
The conflict is between working towards real, small improvement or yelling about revolutionary change with no real improvement at all.
Some people want to see progress made in developing peaceful relations in Korea and some improvements, however small, in the North Korean government’s treatment of its people. The crux of this view is that war is horrible, all Koreans are brothers, and change in North Korea will be a long, painful process no matter what. This is my view.
Others want to make loud, provocative comments to make themselves feel morally great. They promote “regime change”, air strikes, sanctions, UN censure and a host of other useless acts of bravado, that in the end, are of no use to any North Korean victim of tyranny.
Richardson commented a lot about PC. It is obvious that the US is powerful and its government officials are important. I wasn’t trying to be politically correct, but to point out a real supremacist strain in Richardon’s thinking, which is sadly prevalent in the US. Americans too easily view themselves and everything American as superior, which makes it awful difficult to deal with foreigners, who would like to believe themselves not inferior.
Richardson goes out of his way to lambast me for my “PC” views, a favorite pin-cushion for American rightists. His words are always reflective of an arrogant, bullying chauvinism, and he does nothing to portray a respectful attitude towards any nation unless it is being a faithful servant to the Bush administration. This attitude is a main cause of tension in America’s dealings in Asia, where “face” is often the most important part of diplomacy.
“the Roh regime is far, far more out of the int\’l mainstream on the issue”
Let’s be real. South Korea, Russia and China want to just get the whole thing over with, let the North Koreans off the hook, and move on to a peace treaty. Japan is close to opening diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. The US is quite isolated here, and world opinion, which I know the right-wing zealots of democracy oddly dismiss, is totally against any other wars, sanctions regimes, air strikes, or other hostile acts in the name of (pick one or more): WMD, freedom, human rights, civilization, anti-terrrorism.
“Governor Bill Richardson would have been a much better choice for Special Envoy on North Korea (unless the Bush administration is planning to use him for something bigger).”
Bush would never appoint Bill Richardson because Richardson favors engagement and bilateral talks - which the neocons consider anathema. Besides, why would Richardson give up being a governor for a low-power position like Special Envoy to NK?
Richardson has stated that he will run for president in 2008. He is definitely headed for something bigger.
You’re not trying to be PC (uh-huh, righ), and you recognize the fact that the U.S. is after all the most power nation on earth, yet I have “supremacist” tendencies for pointing out that fact in a specific relationship, i.e., the U.S. and Korea, etc..
“I wasn’t trying to be politically correct, but to point out a real supremacist strain in Richardon’s (sic) thinking…”
One more time (the last? I hope it’s the last time I need to repeat myself), this is what I wrote: ‘The reality is that Korea is no where nearly as important to the U.S. as the U.S. is to Korea.’
Stating a fact like that is in no way, “supremacist,” but trying to portray it as so IS being PC. That is how the left takes truthful statements perhaps aren’t’ palatable to everyone (especially concerning power in relationships, differences in performance among groups, etc.), and attempt to twist them into something that makes the messenger evil.
“Let’s be real. South Korea, Russia and China want to just get the whole thing over with, let the North Koreans off the hook, and move on to a peace treaty. Japan is close to opening diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. The US is quite isolated here…”
You’re dreaming. China wants the status quo, but with a nice quite Pyongyang b/c China enjoys a buffer zone between itself and any nation with U.S. troops. In other words, China wants a divided peninsula. China is also worried that North Korea will do something even more stupid that it already has, like give nukes to terrorists, a move that would virtually guarantee U.S. troops entering North Korea after a conflict; all very bad things from China’s view. Russia doesn’t give a damn either way as far as unifications goes, they just want to use their role in the current to gain some influence with the other EA nations, and leverage that for trade. Japan is no where near normalizing ties with North Korea ? not even an option until the kidnapping issue is solved, even if the Sun reversed direction today and North Korea gave up its nukes.
And a peace treaty? Also not even a remote option as long as the nukes are there, and NO ONE, aside from the Roh administration, is just going to “let the North Koreans off the hook” with that. Ironically, the North Koreans don’t hold the South to be qualified to settle a peace treaty with them, only the U.S.
Your position is a textbook example of PC talk in the face of a crappy situation, e.g. your fantasy about everyone wanting to “let the North Koreans off the hook.” That’s saying what you want to be true while ignoring what is really happening ? sounds just like South Korean policy on North Korea.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting it’s there. In this case blaming the U.S. for Kim Jong-il’s actions is a counterproductive PC haze and only serves to obstruct the real issue; what North Korea is and is not doing. It’s like Rice said ? the U.S. and North Korea don’t need to hold bi-lat meetings on North Korea counterfeiting American currency; they just need to stop doing that. Same thing with NPT, the 1991 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and the 1994 Agreed Framework; they just need to comply with what they agreed to do.
One reason why the Roh Administration did not want a huge turnout at the human rights rally is because they were afraid of provoking the North Korean government. Considering the fact that NK still poses a threat to SK, it is completely appropriate to advise the South Korean public to stay away from a rally that can harm future relations with North Korea. (Also, the Roh Administration did not actually prohibit anyone from attending the rally - they only recommended that people not attend.) Considering how the South Korean government was worried about the ramifications of the rally, it was undiplomatic for Lefkowitz to address the rally.
You’re not trying to be PC (uh-huh, righ), and you recognize the fact that the U.S. is after all the most power nation on earth, yet I have “supremacist” tendencies for pointing out that fact in a specific relationship, i.e., the U.S. and Korea, etc..
One more time (the last? I hope it’s the last time I need to repeat myself), this is what I wrote: ‘The reality is that Korea is no where nearly as important to the U.S. as the U.S. is to Korea.
Expressing simple geopolitical realities (or in this case, a particular interpretation of those realities) is in no way “supremacist.” The fact is that relationships are not necessarily equal–it may in fact be true that the U.S. is more important to Korea than Korea is to the U.S. In fact, many Koreans would agree with that assessment. Besides, Korean policy makers make similar judgments about their bilateral relationships, as well they should. For that matter, a common-enough train of thought often repeated in left-wing Korean circles is how important Korea is to U.S. strategy in Asia, and how this importance means that the U.S. military would never leave voluntarily, regardless of the desires of the Korean people. This isn’t a value judgment–it’s simply their particular view of the geopolitical realities that affect their nation.
Having said that, I’m actually enjoying the conversation down here. Thanks.
One reason why the Roh Administration did not want a huge turnout at the human rights rally is because they were afraid of provoking the North Korean government. Considering the fact that NK still poses a threat to SK, it is completely appropriate to advise the South Korean public to stay away from a rally that can harm future relations with North Korea.
Ah, now the “North Korean threat” comes up. And here I was, thinking it was only the right that liked to bandy that term around. Anyway, interesting take, Mi-hwa. Just a question–how far are you willing to let “the North Korean threat” determine the scope to which North Korea can be criticized, at least within South Korea?
Perhaps U.S. policy makers should learn from this–if it wants to silence critics in other democracies, perhaps it should threaten to bomb them if “provoked”
Richardson, I am not leftist, Communist, Stalinist, PC or whatever else you want to label me. I just believe in working towards peace when there is no need for war. I am equally critical of the left. If Clinton had been serious about being president (instead of fulfilling all his fantasies) and pressed the Congress to support the 1994 deal, the situation in Korea would be much less tense today.
There was a very good PBS Frontline documentary on the 1994 deal with North Korea and its political angle in Washington (although I realize most rightists see PBS as a branch of the Communist Party). The North Koreans didn’t get the heating oil on time, and the construction of the light water reactors were delayed. This was all before the 1998 North Korean resumption of nuclear development.
Similar to the middle east peace initiative, these global issues fell victim to Clinton’s short attention span and lack of seriousness in governance.
I am not basing my judgment of Richardson as a chauvinist bully on one or two of his sentences. It is obvious from all his writings that he believes the USA is God’s gift to the universe, and anyone who sees America as just another member of the world community as an evil Commie/terrorist/liberal/whatever.
The US is the only nation that wants to confront North Korea and scuttle the six-party talks. Like it or not, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea don’t care at all about provoking North Korea. Each nation has its own interests, but none of these interests include escalating tensions in Korea with useless rhetoric. The US is all alone in playing a dangerous game of saber-rattling.
Provoke the North Koreans to do what exactly? Refuse to accept hundreds of millions of dollars from Hyundai? The Roh administration does not want large turnouts at rallies that directly refute its appeasement of Kim Jongil, that\’s understandable. The ramifications of the rally are that many, many Koreans are concerned about their relatives and others in North Korea who are oppressed, and the South Korean gov\’t is out of step with this sentiment, which I think is a majority sentiment, not some fringe group\’s ranting. It\’s interesting that some people here excuse and defend the Roh official\’s \”recommendation\” that people not exercise their rights to free speech and assembly in this case.
“U.S. is after all the most powerful nation on earth.”
Americans should not be too proud of that, because America is also a nation in trouble. The total US government deficit is in trillions, making America the biggest debtor nation on earth. Future generations of Americans are going to suffer from the burden of debt brought on by government waste. American education seriously lags behind other advanced nations, especially in math and sciences. That’s one reason why big corporations are heading to China, India, Japan, etc. Also, America has a huge trade deficit with other nations. This means that American products compete very poorly against foreign products.
My point is that Americans should not think that they are superior when they are falling behind other nations.
Mi-hwa–sounds a lot like what I had to listen to during the 1980s. Of course, back then, it was the Germans and Japanese who were supposed to bring an end to the “American Age,” not the Chinese and Indians.
“Perhaps U.S. policy makers should learn from this–if it wants to silence critics in other democracies, perhaps it should threaten to bomb them if “provoked”
”
That is much closer to fact than fiction. According to a leaked British government memo, President Bush suggested bombing al-Jazeera’s news headquarter during the Iraq War. Tony Blair opposed the idea.
“Provoke the North Koreans to do what exactly? Refuse to accept hundreds of millions of dollars from Hyundai?”
That’s exactly what happened when Hyundai’s Chairwoman fired a top executive that Kim Jong Il liked. NK cut in half the number of tourists allowed to enter.
Also, NK has threatened to boycott the 6-nations talk if it is provoked.
After EU sponsored the NK Human Rights Resolution at the UN, NK kicked out all European NGOs.
Provoking North Korea should not be treated lightly.
Actually, I think all the countries would really like it if the North Korean issue would just go away. Even Bush wishes this were possible, I believe.
But making another peace treaty which will very likely be nearly worthless, except to fill KJI’s pockets with more free goodies and prolong his regime to again rattle the cage down the road, will merely serve to kick the can further down the road. Ultimately, I think that’s what will come of any kind of ‘peace treaty’ that will be signed.
I do agree that it’s worth it to do all possible to come up with some kind of agreement that is not a stinking pile of crap, but I’m certainly not holding my breath on that.
And I know it’s selfish for me to say this, but I actually hope they do make some kind of agreement. That way, I can spend the next few years in Korea working hard and saving money before getting my family and my cash out of here before KJI makes another scene to extort more cash(or before reunification happens-I hope to be long gone before that mess happens).
You missed my point, Mi-hwa. N. Korea can freeze the Hyundai tourism, close the Kaesong complex, boycott the talks permanently, and guess what–life goes on just fine for the rest of us. All their threats are idle, and their constant harping about \”retaliation\” is empty, because they know their country would be obliterated if they begin another war–even their erstwhile ally China would probably say good riddance to them this time.
However, Kim Jongil and his cronies continue to oppress and starve people and deny them even the most basic rights that we take for granted. It\’s criminal that the Roh administration not only says nothing about this, but actually sends officials to pressure groups from speaking out and protesting this. North Korea uses threats to extort money and supplies from S. Korea, and the Roh administration readily hands it over.
Mi-hwa–You may wish to reword your argument, lest “engagement” be confused for “appeasement.”
“But making another peace treaty which will very likely be nearly worthless”
US and SK have never signed a peace treaty with NK since the Korean War ended. That’s the main reason why NK maintains a million man army, and tells its people to sacrifice and prepare for an attack by Americans. That’s why most North Koreans think that America is their enemy.
A peace treaty will not be “nearly worthless”. It will be a huge improvement in the relationships between US and both Koreas. It will also start to improve the lives of North Koreans.
Engagement as practiced by the current S.K. gov\’t is worse than useless.
Actually I think it\’s a great idea for the U.S. and S.K. to sign a peace treaty with N.K.–it would remove one of the main excuses for N.K. massing troops and artillery at the border. It would be interesting to see what would follow a treaty like that.
“N. Korea can … boycott the talks permanently, and guess what–life goes on just fine for the rest of us. All their threats are idle”
I think you must be high on drugs. America is not going to allow a rogue nation with long range missiles to have nuclear weapons for very long. America will resort to pre-emptive strikes if necessary, causing tremendous devastation for both North and South Korea.
Also, Japan can use North Korea as an excuse to develop its own nuclear weapons, triggering a dangerous nuclear weapons build-up in Asia.
If NK boycotts the 6-nations talk, and negotiations fail, there will be serious consequences for all parties.
Perhaps I’m high on drugs, but I’m a bit confused — is North Korea the scared misunderstood state forced to maintain a million-man army because of the threat from the big US bully, or is it the scary “rogue” state threatening the world with nukes and long-range missiles that must be appeased at all costs?
Marmot–The answer to your question is that NK is both of those things.
Ah, I see…
Yes, Mi-Hwa, my mistake in stating ‘peace treaty’. But as far as yet another North Korean boycott is concerned, it almost seems that no matter what the US does, the Norks will continue to play the same game of ‘one step forward two steps back’.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the US does, whether it acts ‘provocatively’ or otherwise (anything short of meekly kowtowing-as the leaders of the South almost seem to do), then KJI and his ’supporters’ will yet again blame the Americans for once again screwing up yet another ‘golden opportunity’ for solving the crisis.
Yes, if the US doesn’t watch out, they may blow another opportunity to sign another worthless ‘agreement’.
I\’m only high on life (unfortunately, but there\’s beer waiting for me at home). N.K.\’s threats are still hollow, because they need outside aid desperately, and frankly no one needs them. If they escalate to the point of a nuke test or whatever, we\’ll see, maybe the U.S. will bomb them. I honestly have mixed feelings about that, not least because I\’m living in Seoul, but one of the \”geopolitical realities\” Marmot was referring to is that the U.S. calls the shots in the region, sometimes literally. I think Kim Jongil & Co. are rational actors, though, which means they recognize the stakes involved and act accordingly. They push to the edge, but always pull back. That\’s the game they like to play, and are pretty good at it.
Also, all the players in this game keep it going in one way or another–the U.S. has been N.K.\’s main humanitarian aid donor for years. I just welcome the recent criticisms by U.S. officials of N.K., the specific ones on human rights etc., not the \”axis of evil\” rhetoric. Equally, the rhetoric coming from S.K. on N.K. has been disappointing.
I still say life goes on fine for the rest of us–the onus is on N.K. to free its people and behave, not on any other nation.
Perhaps I’m high on drugs, but I’m a bit confused — is North Korea the scared smaller state forced to maintain a million-man army because of the threat from the big US bully, or is it the big, scary “rogue” state threatening the world with nukes and long-range missiles that must be appeased at all costs?
The “world” is not threatened by North Korea. At most, Japan and South Korea are threatened, but even then, North Korea would only be able to attack these nations at the cost of its own total devastation.
The Bush administration, with its multi-trillion dollar war machine, can strike at almost any country on Earth with near-total impunity. In fact, the US could physically annihilate any nation, except for a few like China and Russia.
This massive imbalance of power is why North Korea and other states that have bad relations with the US are so paranoid. They know that any retaliation to a US military attack would be suicidal. Take this US invincibility, and combine it with the constant stream of aggressive rhetoric, and the obvious neocon preference for military solutions to all problems, and you have a perfect recipe to maximize North Korean paranoia and belligerence.
This situation could lead to a pointless, devastating war, which would kill many Koreans and destroy the decades of economic development in South Korea. Such a war would have almost no impact on the US. This reality explains the divergent attitudes towards engagement with North Korea.
N. Korea can freeze the Hyundai tourism, close the Kaesong complex, boycott the talks permanently, and guess what–life goes on just fine for the rest of us.
After decades of poisoned relations, there is now a movement for the Koreas to slowly act like the brothers they are. Some people highly esteem movements towards peace and reconciliation. They see the ability of former enemies to embrace as reflecting the best part of our humanity. Others think that unless they can dictate the exact terms, peace is worthless. These people see peace as a euphemism for submission.
Derailing the Kaesong project or other co-operative activities would have no effect on the US, but it would destroy the years of effort to reconcile the Koreas, and hinder the main goal of the South Korean government, to promote better relations with North Korea.
Hey G Travan, N.K. did not amass a million-man army, set artillery batteries near Seoul and start a nuke program the day Bush was inaugurated. And it has bad relations with most nations on earth except for a few other military dictatorships and unelected tyrants.
It\’s really funny that you play N.K. as a hapless victim of geopolitics when it is an active violator international law and treats its own people worse than most countries treat convicts.
It\’s also rather sad that you and others see S.K. funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into the North and getting absolutely nothing in return as some sort of rapprochement.
The main goal of the Roh gov\’t is to stave off the North\’s collapse — and who can blame them — but there is certainly room for some \”tough love,\” i.e. demanding reciprocity from the North such as removing a few thousand artillery batteries from the border.
“the obvious neocon preference for military solutions to all problems”
Gee, let’s just generalize slightly why don’t we? What’s the leftist solution to every problem? How about meeting and discussing forever with no real solution in sight (aka the UN).
Well, it looks like you will get your way because ultimately, nobody, including Bush, wants a war here with North Korea (what does Bush truly stand to gain from a war with the North? It would be political suicide, what with the number of troops that would die). Perhaps some agreement will be signed and nothing will change. We’ll be having this same discussion a few years down the road about how Bush (and later the next President) failed to act back in ‘00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, etc…
Exactly, Michael, you hit the nail on the head. What is needed is reciprocity. The Norks have been playing the South for suckers, taking all the goodies it can get its hands on and for nothing in return. It’s time to expect and demand something tangible in return.
What’s the leftist solution to every problem?
I’m not a leftist, so I couldn’t care less about leftists or their solutions. I’m proud to be independent-minded and critical of left, right and middle.
The neocons are well-known for their crusading approach to the world. The neocons foam at the mouth at the mention of international law or organizations. They prefer to threaten, sanction and invade every nation that is a problem. This belligerent attitude is no way of peacefully solving international disputes. But then again, that is the point, as peaceful compromise is anathema to the neocons.
War is sometimes justified, as in 1950 when the Communists tried to conquer all of Korea. However, being hostile just for its own sake is counterproductive and quite barbaric. The awful North Korean government is a reality. Each nation can choose to mimic North Korea’s idiotic belligerence and posturing, or adopt a more enlightened attitude and try to negotiate solutions to the North Korean dilemma.
Nowadays it seems the neocons are having their way, with American officials doing their best to outdo the KCNA in a propaganda war. What’s the use, really? All the chest-thumping may make people feel big and strong, but at the end of the day, the choice is to negotiate or to risk war. All the hot rhetoric in the world will not change that.
It’s time to expect and demand something tangible in return.
I totally agree, but the demands must be reasonable and start off small. Demands like “abandon all your nuclear activities before you get a dollar of aid” are just a way of scuttling negotiations.
You have to accept that without the massive aid from South Korea, no demands at all could be realistically made on North Korea, and the situation would revert to that of the Cold War. The aid gives the South a little leverage to influence the North Koreans, and I think it is worth it, even though it is obviously a one-sided affair.
All the chest-thumping may make people feel big and strong, but at the end of the day, the choice is to negotiate or to risk war.
No, that’s not necessarily the case. As you yourself pointed out, North Korea is not a threat–not to the United States, anyway. If this is the case, why should the U.S. either fight or negotiate? Or to put this another way, why should the U.S. pay–in either lives (in the case of war) or money (in the case of negotiations) to eliminate a non-existent threat?
According to this article, on the morning of December 8th, just as they were getting ready to go cover the opening ceremonies of the human rights conference, reporters assigned to the Ministry of Unification received a text message from the Unification Ministry saying that Minister Chung would be giving a press conference in thirty minutes, causing the reporters to forgo covering the conference. However, when they arrived for the press conference, Chung was not there, and there was no press conference until later that afternoon.
The next day a reporter asked a Unification Ministry official if the Chung press conference was a diversion to keep them from covering the opening ceremonies of the human rights conference. The ministry official responded as follows:
You are not cub reporters, so why would you want to go to a place like that (venue for the human rights conference)? Since when have you shown an interest in North Korean human rights?
G Travan, your obvious over-the-top bias against neocons, which you seem to think epitomizes the Bush admin, definitely takes away from the credibility of your other suggestions.
You don’t think the US is trying to find some kind of solution? What were the previous rounds of 6-party talks about? Where is the headlong rush into war by those evil neocons, 6 years after Bush got into office?
Actually, I do think that there are elements in Bush’s government that don’t want to see an agreement concluded (in some ways I agree, cause it will very likely be worthless-and there are many in the South who would love to ignore the issue entirely because they want to delay reunification for as long as possible), but it hardly means that a war is on the horizon.
And I don’t know where you got the ‘abandon all or you don’t get another nickel of aid’ idea is from. The US has continued to be the LARGEST aid donor since Bush was elected.
The neocons are trying to outdo the KCNA in propoganda? So in other words, the human rights conference and everything the US envoys have said are nothing but propoganda? How about the fact that alot of it is actually true? If you speak the truth, is it still propoganda?
“The Roh-Chung team and the Bush administration have been letting ideology get in the way of sitting down and working out a workable, unified solution that would be palatable to both sides. And that is why nothing is working.”
Disagree.
It isn’t “ideology” that is the stumbling block. It is the national interst goals.
Roh’s government, supported by the bulk of Korean society, does not view the nukes as the primary concern. That concern is keeping the North from collapse which requires, to them, more than bare minimum food aid.
SK has not been going to bat for the North, trying to influence the US to soften its stance and do what the North wants, like arguing for 1-on-1 meetings for years, because it believes the North’s nukes are a “the sky is falling” crisis.
The chicken little crisis for them is the idea of a potential NK implosion.
For the US, the nukes and other issues are more important than whether the North folds in on itself or not.
Thus, the divergent policies and geopolitical friction.
It isn’t about ideology.
G Tavern,
“with no real improvement at all.”
Define “improvement”…
Improvement in the strength of the Kim Jong Il regime. Sure.
Improvement in its ability to hold the people. Sure. Seen that. In the mid 1990s, NK’s starving to death decided to say, “F- it!” and roam the countryside looking for frogs to eat and risk brutality and possible imprisonment for daring not to get a government pass to go from town to town, but with increased food and other material aid, starvation has been curtailed, and the regime has been able to regain much of that control. Kudos.
Improvement in human rights? Well…
Improvement in the nuke situation? Well…
Improvement in government reform?
Where has the noteworthy improvement been?
And how is such improvement so all important that it should cower those who want to speak about money laundering, drug trafficing, and the many other things the North does as a matter of state routine that go against everything the international community says it stands for?
“I just believe in working towards peace when there is no need for war.”
WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR….
It’s a strawman argument like too many you are putting out.
It’s a chicken little arguement that is really starting to irritate me these days — though that has nothing to do with you. It is hearing the SK government and sometimes the media thumping that note ad nauseum that is getting to me.
Because it is so disingenious.
As Marmot said, the only time you hear these people mention NK as “a threat” is when they want to buffer US policy they don’t like.
The chance of war with NK are limited, because it has long had a heck of a deterent.
It will have to push things far along before war will become a serious option.
Every person I have heard marching out the “war” argument is, let’s face it, arguing for greater appeasement. They are calling up the phantom of war to justify something as incredibly….incredibly….incredibly repeated 100 times….ridiculous as “not saying something to offend Kim Jong Il”…
Good grief!!!!
“pressed the Congress to support the 1994 deal, the situation in Korea would be much less tense today.”
uranium nuke program…
oh wait…….things are only “tense” because somebody let the cat out of the bag about that program….
if that had not happened….we could all still be holding hands singing kumbieya….
“Each nation has its own interests, but none of these interests include escalating tensions in Korea with useless rhetoric. The US is all alone in playing a dangerous game of saber-rattling.”
Didn’t this conversation begin with some things like money laundrying, drug trafficing, illegal (as defined by the international community) technology transfers, missile sales, concentration camps, forced starvation?
Rhetoric….
Oh….ok……rhetoric….
“The “world” is not threatened by North Korea. At most, Japan and South Korea are threatened, but even then, North Korea would only be able to attack these nations at the cost of its own total devastation.
The Bush administration, with its multi-trillion dollar war machine, can strike at almost any country on Earth with near-total impunity. In fact, the US could physically annihilate any nation, except for a few like China and Russia.”
Oh, for Pete’s sake!!!
What do you think France is more afraid of — The US nuking it off the face of the earth?
or, some underground Algerian group smugglig in a nuke or dirty bomb that got passed around but ultimately got its start in NK?
“Some people highly esteem movements towards peace and reconciliation. They see the ability of former enemies to embrace as reflecting the best part of our humanity.”
Me. War monger. War good. Gooooooood. Huh. Me no like peace thingy. Bad. Mo war. War good. Goooooooddd.
The conversation has now past the point of uselessness.
Trying to knock down all the strawman arguments is like taking a baseball bat to a corn field in Iowa.
Good-bye…….
“However, being hostile just for its own sake is counterproductive and quite barbaric.”
As I said, pointless…..
I just want to remind everybody again….we used to be talking about things like money laundering, state run drug trafficing, and other tiny things……
good-bye II
G Travan, your obvious over-the-top bias against neocons, which you seem to think epitomizes the Bush admin, definitely takes away from the credibility of your other suggestions.
You don’t think the US is trying to find some kind of solution? What were the previous rounds of 6-party talks about? Where is the headlong rush into war by those evil neocons, 6 years after Bush got into office?
I know that the neo-cons are just one element of the Bush administration, which also contains pragmatists (the Colin Powell types). Bush himself is not a neocon. I am biased against the neocons because they are maniacal Marxists polluting the political world of the US with their crusading, uncivilized ideology.
The more pragmatic elements of the Bush administration were responsible for the 6 party talks. When these talks began to finally make some headway (very little headway, but at least a declaration in September), the neocons seized the initiative and tanked the talks with sanctions and rhetoric. This is a familiar pattern. Ever since the Clinton 1994 deal, every step towards a deal is met by frenzied efforts to sink the deal from North Korean and American extremists.
As for the war issue, usinkorea, I only keep bringing this up because of the constant promotion of “regime change” by the Bush administration. “Regime change”, airstrikes, and full-out war are the hallmark of the neocons. I hope the pragmatists in the Bush administration can reign them in.
War may seem improbable in Korea, but history is full of ridiculous mistakes leading to disastrous wars.
RE: comments by Travan
“The North Koreans didn’t get the heating oil on time, and the construction of the light water reactors were delayed.”
You know the what and not the why. North Korea pushed for the 500,000 tons of fuel oil (not heating oil) per year to be included in the 1994 Agreed Framework, and when the first shipment arrived from the U.S. ? on time ? the North Koreans couldn’t accept it; they didn’t have a deep water port sufficient to host a vessel carrying 500,000 tons of fuel oil! It was in their waters, just not on their land, and at no fault of the U.S. They had to work out a system of ferrying it to shore with smaller ships, which greatly increased the time it took as well as the expense. North Korea also did not have adequate storage for the fuel oil, further complicating delivery.
As for the delayed construction, North Korea was constantly delaying talks, sometimes outright ignoring U.S. requests for necessary meetings. They continually balked at inspections justified by the NPT. If you’ll remember, it was also during this time that a DPRK sub washed up, and there were several naval skirmishes ? all North Korean actions ? that complicated the progression of required meetings, particularly the North-South dialogue called for in the agreement.
“I am not basing my judgment of Richardson as a chauvinist bully on one or two of his sentences. It is obvious from all his writings… [blah, blah, blah].”
I’ll tell you what ? show me some me some specific quotes that make you think this, and I’ll show you it’s just another case of your PC sensitivities being bashed with reality.
“The US is the only nation that wants to confront North Korea and scuttle the six-party talks. Like it or not, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea don’t care at all about provoking North Korea…”
The U.S. does not want to “scuttle” the talks; the U.S. want the outcome of the talks to be more worthwhile (against all odds) that all the collection of past agreements, which are apparently used as TP in KJI’s palaces. You don’t hammer out a meaningful agreement by letting “North Korea off the hook” (no, I’m not going to let you live that ridiculous assertion down), and glossing over the issues with warm-fuzzy talk.
“… The US is all alone in playing a dangerous game of saber-rattling.”
North Korea has threatened to trun Seoul into a “sea of fire” (direct quote) 18 times since June 1997. You know, Seoul, South Korea, the country that has been enabling KJI. Of course it must be the fault of America, everything else is…
“The “world” is not threatened by North Korea. At most, Japan and South Korea are threatened, but even then, North Korea would only be able to attack these nations at the cost of its own total devastation. “
And here I was worried about the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology (to terrorists and others), and an East Asian conflict (involving three of the top economies in the world) that would almost be guaranteed to erupt into a World War, spreading economic ruin besides the obvious physical effects. Thanks for clearing that up. Whew!
This massive imbalance of power is why North Korea and other states that have bad relations with the US are so paranoid…
The element that escapes your ‘analysis’ is that North Korea has created this problem with its hostility, and by breaking every agreement it makes. What’s more, as long as KJI is the leader, they will never truly engage, no matter what. WHY? The cult regime cannot allow engagement b/c the truth will destroy it. This is what is most often overlooked in all analysis, but particularly that of the leftist brand (e.g., Cumings, Kang). This is a problem of North Korea’s making, and blaming the U.S. for North Korea’s actions will never solve this.
After decades of poisoned relations, there is now a movement for the Koreas to slowly act like the brothers they are… Others think that unless they can dictate the exact terms, peace is worthless. These people see peace as a euphemism for submission.
Your description of those “others” is a perfect description of the North Korean leadership.
“Demands like “abandon all your nuclear activities before you get a dollar of aid” are just a way of scuttling negotiations.”
I’ll translate that from leftist-speak into reality: ‘demanding that North Korea abide by the many agreements it has broken is unfair and we can’t expect them to negotiate under such conditions.’ In other words, appease, comrades!
“I am biased against the neocons because they are maniacal Marxists polluting the political world of the US with their crusading, uncivilized ideology.”
Sorry, G Travan, am I missing something here? Neocons are Marxists? I know some of them used to be leftists, but it sounds like you’ve been listening to your own set of fanatics and crusaders(Chomsky perhaps?).
“As for the war issue, usinkorea, I only keep bringing this up because of the constant promotion of “regime change” by the Bush administration. “Regime change”, airstrikes, and full-out war are the hallmark of the neocons.”
Again, what?? Constant promotion of regime change? Where is this constant promotion? Do you read about it daily in the newspapers? A steady stream of press releases by Bush? A barrage of interviews with Bushies shouting for regime change? Rather, I think what we hear constantly in Korea is a steady stream of ’sunshine is best’.
As far as the hallmarks of neocons are concerned, how many examples can you give of the actions of those evil neocons? Iraq? Aghanistan, which had quite wide backing across the spectrum?
It’s so typical of the left (I know you say you’re not a leftist) to absolutely demonise those they disagree with. The evil neocons are coming! Well, wherever you are coming from, please spare us the paranoid rantings so typical of the left.
North Korea has threatened to trun Seoul into a “sea of fire” (direct quote) 18 times since June 1997.
Yes, North Korea is big on the rhetoric. It also likes to say that everything is an act of war, a declaration of war, or tantamount to war. It’s the boy that cries ??.
The difference is that when the United States talks about toppling regimes, well, they really sometimes do it. That’s why Pyongyang’s rhetoric might seem to some as a lot less ominous than Washington’s.
You know, Seoul, South Korea, the country that has been enabling KJI.
I thought that was China.
You know, China, the country that supplies all the cheap stuff at Walmart. You know, China, which massacres villagers and then tries to cover it up. China, our good buddy and economic partner.
Of course it must be the fault of America, everything else is…
Well, doing business with China as if it’s not violating its own citizens’ human rights and it’s not propping up the murderous Pyongyang regime is the fault of America. And Japan, and South Korea, and Taiwan.
Again, what?? Constant promotion of regime change? Where is this constant promotion? Do you read about it daily in the newspapers? A steady stream of press releases by Bush? A barrage of interviews with Bushies shouting for regime change?
Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, Sudan, China,…………..
All are accepted targets for “regime change” by the neo-cons. Are you denying that the neo-cons are hotly pressing for “regime change” in Iran and Syria as we speak, and have actively pressed for “regime change” in North Korea?
The Bush administration has stepped back from total embrace of the neocons after the Iraq deathtrap, but the neocons are still influential.
The neocons are almost all Trotskyite Marxists who allied with the right-wing evangelicals. Look into Irving Kristol, William Kristol and Richard Pipes for yourselves. They don’t like to drag out their history, but they’re all Marxists. That is why they sound more like North Koreans than Americans, always screaming about evil nations to be crushed, and embracing their political ideology with religious zeal. The neocons are closer to being a cult than a political group, as Seymour Hersh commented recently.
I’ll translate that from leftist-speak into reality: ‘demanding that North Korea abide by the many agreements it has broken is unfair and we can’t expect them to negotiate under such conditions.’ In other words, appease, comrades!
I am referring to the US negotiating position at the 6 way talks. Whatever the reasons, the 1994 agreement is dead in the water. Now the US is telling the North Koreans to concede to every US demand on the nuclear issue before even discussing some goodies for North Korea. That’s not realistic. We all know the North Koreans won’t budge unless they get 5 carrots for every carrot the US and South Korea gets. Now you’re asking them to give you all their carrots before you even start talking about how many you’ll give them. it’s a recipe for failure.
Is it so hard to believe that someone can be critical of the neocons and recent US policy in Korea and NOT be a commie, leftie, Chomskyite, etc.?
Chomsky has pretty much become a caricature. He is so instinctively anti-American that he’s not really worth listening to, and he’s actually very helpful to right-wing people who can discredit any cause just by associating it with Chomsky.
I’ll just wind up this long, but for me at least, quite stimulating discussion with this. People like Bush and the neocons are the real anti-Americans. They’re sullying America with their madness, while at the same time bankrupting the nation and ignoring critical needs at home. America is a giant, and should act like one: confident and conciliatory.
It’s easy to paint critics of the US government as traitors or anti-American enemies, but the truth is that outside the far left, there are a lot of people who wish only the best for America and its people, and are very angered to see unwise leadership tarnish America’s image and hurt America’s interests.
“The difference is that when the United States talks about toppling regimes, well, they really sometimes do it. That’s why Pyongyang’s rhetoric might seem to some as a lot less ominous than Washington’s.”
So it’s ok for Pyongyang to resort to rhetoric, but when the U.S. lays out consequences ? you may call it rhetoric, I call it fair warning ? somehow that’s not fair because the U.S. is more powerful. Sorry, I don’t buy that for a second.
And are you trying to say that South Korea is not an enabler? That China is does not negate the fact that the South is. What they are doing is also different as are their goals for the North.
On human rights, comparing the China of Mao to North Korea today would fly; a modern comparison does not. It’s a bit of a red herring.
G Travan, what I am saying is that to me you sound like you’ve picked up on some of the paranoid rantings typical of the left, that’s all. I didn’t say you were a leftist, but if you’re going to spout some of the very same things I’ve heard from that corner, then I’m going to point out that that’s where I’ve heard it all before.
What I find ridiculous in your assertions about Bush and the neocons, is that there are alot of people who can see some reason to the actions of Bush and his admin. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, but I can see their rationale for doing what they’ve done, and it really seems to me that it has nothing to do with them being crazed, evil, immoral fascists.
Do I believe everything Bush has said or claimed about whatever? Of course not, he’s in government (I’m not a fan of big government) and I know there’s always plenty of spin going on.
As far as your long list of possible candidates for regime change, I asked for actual action, not mere talk. Again, anyone besides Iraq? If you want to make a list of people who’ve done plenty of talk (and some action) about regime change, you could start with Castro, Chavez, KJI, China, etc.
What I’m saying is that I think that an irrational fear of Bush and neocons is a refusal to accept that just maybe, those people have some kind of method behind their ‘madness’, though you may disagree with it. I hate KJI, but I know he is certainly not crazy or even evil, really. He is obviously only out to save his own skin, that seems apparent.
All in all, an interesting discussion, even if I completely disagree with you on your view that Bush and the neocons have hurt America. I don’t think conciliation is always the best route, just look at the UN. And Bush has relied heavily on diplomacy, despite what the fanatic Bush-haters say.
“I am biased against the neocons because they are maniacal Marxists polluting the political world of the US with their crusading, uncivilized ideology… The neocons are almost all Trotskyite Marxists who allied with the right-wing evangelicals. Look into Irving Kristol, William Kristol and Richard Pipes for yourselves. They don’t like to drag out their history, but they’re all Marxists.”
Neocons, by definition, are againstMarxism, and they are capitalists. The well-known quip is that they are ‘liberals that were mugged by reality.’ They noticed the policies of the left sound great ? are what people want to hear ? but don’t actually work at best, and make things worst usually. Bill Kristol was never a Marxist, although he was a Democrat in his youth (if you want to make a link between Democrats and Marxists, go for it). Instead of relying on what other people tell you about neocons, which is obviously factually incorrect, while don’t you read one of Irving Kristol’s books? Right now you’re simply regurgitating leftist conspiracy theory. Not a leftist? Of course not, right.
“I am referring to the US negotiating position at the 6