Meeting with a group of high-ranking Korean lawmakers visiting the United States, the Afghan ambassador to Washington asked Seoul to stop making public statements opposing the use of force. [YTN, Korean].
The ambassador said he fully understood Korea’s position, but it would be best if such statements weren’t made publicly.
The lawmakers, meanwhile, stressed to the ambassador that to rescue the hostages, the United States needed to show flexibility in its anti-terrorism policies.
11 Comments
This is perhaps the first bit of reason and good sense to come out of this entire affair. Huzzah to the Afghan ambassador!
—the type of flexibility involved in bending over and grabbing one’s ankles. The lawmakers pointed to Kim Dae-jung’s and Roh Moo-hyun’s North Korea policies as examples of such flexibility.
hear! hear! How many times does it have to said that you can’t negotiate with terrorists before the Korean government starts to listen?
This policy is not something the US government just made up just because of this incident. If US citizens found themselves in the same situation what would the US do? They would send in the army and if there were ‘collateral damage’ that would be par for the course but you could be sure there would be a lot fewer terrorists to try it again.
To the western way of thinking, there is only one outcome to this renegotiation– release the hostages or be prepared to meet Allah a lot sooner that you think.
While the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists, neither do they just “send in the army”. As an example, three U.S. missionaries were kidnapped by Colombian guerrillas in Panama in the early 1990s. Since the U.S. had disbanded the Panamanian defence forces, there was no local Army to send in. And, it appeared that the missionaries had been taken into Colombia. The problem was: where? They were never located. Contrary to some popular opinion, the U.S. does not unilaterally launch military operations into nations with whom we are not at war. Particularly when we lack sufficient intelligence to define the target and pinpoint its location. And, “collateral damage” does matter, especially in sensitive areas where such casualties may increase our risks. As for the new tribes missionaries, they are now presumed dead, and Colombia still has a guerrilla problem.
The Afgan ambassador is correct. All options must be left on the table, to include military force, to include that of the punitive variety.
“All options must be left on the table, to include military force, to include that of the punitive variety.”
Absolutely. You don’t walk into a used car dealership, tell the salesperson you’ll definitely be walking out with a car in a half hour, and expect to have the least bit of bargaining leverage. Not unless you’re an idiot.
Which have been notably successful in liberating longterm south Korean prisoners of the North, not to mention the beneficial effects for North Korean citizens. (Oh, re the latter, I forgot that political rights for the latter are like “pearls before swine” — in the unforgettable words of south korea’s former minister of unification, who thus carefully elided the issue whether sunshine had improved even the health and welfare of the “swine”.)
The Roh administrations position is as predictable as sunrise and sunset, and has proved to be unable to learn/grasp even basic realities after years of literally throwing money at North Korea hoping they will change, “hub of Asia” gibberish aside.
Kevin Kim has an excellent animation for this situation over at his blog.
How’d he get that on Roh’s mouth? I’m checking photoshop right now and I don’t see that add-man-juice option on any of the menus.
Afghanistan and Columbia are totally different situations. The US did not have a military presence in Columbia and Columbian guerrillas are not terrorizing US citizens on US soil, whereas in Afghanistan, the US military already has a significant force in place because of 9/11. It’s not a matter of ’sending in the army’ when the army is already there. Who knows what the intelligence situation is, but I’ll bet you it’s a lot better than it was in Columbia. They even know what province in Afghanistan the hostages are in and the fact that they are split up and spread out between 9 villages. I would say that’s a fair bit of intelligence to start with. As for not being at war with Columbia, what do you call 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan? A vacation?
For that matter, Korea also currently has a military force in Afghanistan. Adding to that force is not out of the realm of possibility.
Gee, Korean politicians shooting their mouths off…again. That’s hardly news anymore.
What never ceases to amaze me is the high level of amateurism amongst Korean politicians. This occurs in Japan and Taiwan too and is particularly pronounced in the area of international affairs.
#10 -
East Asian politicians definitely don’t have a monopoly on amateurism in international affairs:
http://iht.com/articles/ap/200.....lomacy.php
One Trackback
[...] have to say I really hope this is not true, but given some of the statements from the country’s leadership over the past several days, I have a bad [...]