The NYT asks the Bush administration to give diplomacy a chance. Personally, I’m not a fan of name-calling–I don’t believe the North Koreans really give a rat’s ass what people call them, and if you think a "hard-line" is going to get you leverage in negotiations with Pyongyang, your "hard-line" had better encompass more than just harsh language. And besides, unless U.S. officials are willing to plum the depths of belligerence, xenophobia, racism and hate-mongering that the North Koreans routinely employ in their rhetoric, there’s just no way they are going to win a shit-talking war with Pyongyang, so why even try. Now having said that, the NYT editorial strikes me as playing right into North Korea’s strategy. Oooo, North Korea is scary and unpredictable. Oooo, don’t call them names because they might not talk with us. Oooo, we better do something quick before the North Koreans do something really wack. It’s one thing to tell the White House to dispense with the name-calling, but another to freak out because you think Pyongyang is going to start firing nukes off at LA and New York because the Americans called them something not even a tenth as strong as what they routinely call the United States.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
16 Comments
Yeah, give me a break. Just because the US calls the Norks a few bad names, that means they’ve ruined all chances of ’success’ in diplomacy? The name-calling means almost nothing, its just a game and the Norks just use it every time as an excuse to do nothing.
They don’t want to make any deal. They just want to recieve piles more of free goodies for doing nothing, so any excuse to delay any action on their part will work.
The name calling is not exactly helpful, but it isn’t the problem here. It’s the fact that the Norks don’t want to make any kind of deal that doesn’t allow them to have their cake and eat it, too. In other words, they want security guarantees and no-strings-attached aid and want to keep their nukes, too.
“They don’t want to make any deal. They just want to recieve piles more of free goodies for doing nothing, so any excuse to delay any action on their part will work.”
“In other words, they want security guarantees and no-strings-attached aid and want to keep their nukes, too.”
Therefore, call ‘em names!!
The name calling is a minor side issue–the U.S. is finally addressing human rights in N.K., and clamping down on the counterfeiting of dollars. These are tangible moves that underscore that N.K. is a brutal dictatorship and flaunts international law. The next step is to work with the EU, China and Russia to set down serious punishments for N.K. if it doesn’t cut the nuclear weapons and let people leave N.K. of their own will.
The kind of negotiation that the NYT advocates is toothless and on a par with the name calling–just more hot air.
NYT needs to get its panties out of a twist and look at things in perspective. Consider the vituperation that comes out of Pyongyang. No, that doesn’t mean we should trade tit for tat. But calling Pyongyang a criminal regime and Kim Jong Il a tyrant are statements of fact - unpleasant and provocative facts, but facts nonetheless. Calling things by their right names, as Confucius recommends in the Analects as the basis of action that is both moral and effective, doesn’t mean that you can’t and don’t negotiate with criminal, tryannical regimes, if that looks like it might be effective, but it sure helps to ensure that you don’t lose your compass.
So the Bush administration is Confucianist?
GI Korea had this great link, hope he doesn’t mind me sharing it:
http://www.thedailygrind.net/s.....6_0_10_0_C
You too can play midget dictator in the comfort of your own home! I can’t wait to download this one….
“Therefore, call ‘em names!!”
No, call them what they are. If they don’t want to negotiate, they’ll find an excuse anyhow–be it name-calling or whatever. The NYT is correct in saying that NK can afford to stall, while those who don’t want NK to have nukes can’t stall. But these statements of fact will not prolong things. Not negotiating will.
My fear is that those on more of the right-wing side on the Bush team are only using human rights and counterfeiting as their own form of excuse. I think counterfeiting and human rights are more than legitimate issues (especially human rights), I just hope Bush is serious about them.
Tell you what, when the White House decides to get as tough on the Norks as you’d like to see, tell me ahead of time so I can fly the fuck out of here.
You guys can have the front row seats to yourselves.
It astounds me that anyone still reads the New York Times. I’ve lived in New York for over 3 years now and have yet to see a single person reading it (crossword puzzle notwithstanding), yet any time their website gets updated with an editorial that was probably originally written in purple crayon, it hits every blog from here to Pakistan.
Although offensive to NK, America’s tough accusations on NK is nothing new. The US has talked tough on NK since Truman. NYT is off the mark when it says that the name-calling is to blame for the negotation stalemate. What NK wants is simple: diplomatic relations with the US and entry into the international stage as a legitimate state (obviously this is the best method to sustain the regime). NK considers any real progress in this area as substantial and anything else, such as public criticism, as smoke. I would conjecture that the name-calling would upset NK in only that it loses face in the international community. (Of course, I don’t think it would get such a bad rap if it treated its own citizens more humanely.)
So am I still politically correct when I call South Korea dirty names, or am I just reading the wrong newspaper?
I just realized last night when thinking about Korea related items that I firmly believe —-
—-if Hitler were facing the global community today………..I absolutely believe…..history would repeat itself…almost to a T.
I don’t know. In some bad neighborhood, jiving the right way gives you some respect. If you speak normal, you lose “respect” and losing respect may bring in many unnecessary challenges.
President Bush should use harsher languages to put these asshos to the rightful place. These savages respect that type of language and understand the message better. Don’t use sissy-language with them. President Carter did and became a laughing stock, even to them.
Finished reading it. That has to be one of the worst editorials in a big outlet I’ve ever seen. It is like grading freshman comp papers all over again…
The NYT really has made itself look very stupid a couple of times when it comes to North Korea. A few months ago, Kristof wrote an ignorant long piece that Bush was a monkey for going into 6 Party Talks, because the North had shown they would only take 1-on-1 meetings seriously thus making the 6 party ones useless. And after reams of words calling Bush a sucker and what not, he added that 1-on-1 talks which the North wants would be a format in which human rights could be put on the table as well.
??????
How does that work exactly? If the most important thing is to get the Norks into a position where they feel like talking for real, but somehow bringing in human rights issues isn’t going to lead to gridlock?
I am for putting human rights on the table, but Kristof’s argument was a complete mess.
Then you have this one today….
If in the 1st third of the editorial, you say sanctions are a correct thing to do if the North has been illegally printing US dollars (and other things) the new sanctions were said to target, how in the world does the rest of the article make any sense whatsoever?
We know the North has been caught red handed doing everything claimed against them.
So, didn’t we just waist moments of our lives reading an editorial that shouldn’t have even been written if the author believes what he says he believes?
And when you read him using the phrase “Patriot Act sanctions,” you see the real desperation in trying to make an argument that works…..
…..it was a clear process of the guy falling back off the weak thoughts to gain blind support from the party faithful — where just mentioning “The Patriot Act” is meant to rally the masses to you — when you haven’t got a point to make.
What a sad editorial.
To think this is a newspaper of influence around the world, and they have to hammer out such a weak thought as that…..
My response;
http://www.dprkstudies.org/?p=185
—-if Hitler were facing the global community today………..I absolutely believe…..history would repeat itself…almost to a T.
Maybe you’re right. All of World War II could have been prevented if Roosevelt had just gotten on the radio and really dissed Adolf.
And if WWII erupted again, we’d have internment of Japanese-Americans all over again.
(Actually, I do see your point and agree with you to a large degree, but I think the lack of caring about wholesale suppression of people whose oppressive government’s abuses we’d like to ignore so they can just go away started with China, not North Korea.)
I think like everyone else that NYT is left winged. Not that I have a lot of problem with that. The problem with the NYT isn’t the Op-Ed section. Being leftwinged myself (at least in this crowd) I also cringe at times reading the WSJ Op-Ed. But the WSJ articles keep opinions in the Op-Ed section where they belong, which is what makes NYT annoying.
At the same time I get very scared when I read some posters here who say stuff like, “I live in New York and I didn’t see anyone read the NYT.” Living in a city where Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer are demi-gods and even Al Sharpton is regarded as a semi-respectable politician, and having not seen people read the NYT????
I go to the NYT website and they make their money off from–get this–having people PAY to read OPINIONS. News, is of course, FREE! So what I’m seeing is a legion of very liberal people who gladly line up to pay good $$$ to enter the echo chamber. But then of course, I also get scared when I see a legion of conservative folks who don’t read NYT and don’t know anyone in their social circles who do—living in the bluest of blue city in United States… It’s as if Upper East side is it’s own little borough.
Sometimes though, you have to wonder, is it scarier that they read the NYT or is it more scarier that people read the NYP?