Bill Clinton Heading to N. Korea for Talks on Jailed Reporters

[Robert Toy]

SEOUL, South Korea - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton is heading to North Korea for negotiations to secure the freedom of two detained American journalists, a news report said Tuesday, nearly five months after they were seized on the China border.

Clinton is on his way to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, where he will try to win the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported, citing an unidentified high-level source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32277010/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

News reports are stating a deal is done and he will be returning with both journalists.

[AMCrenshaw]

who'd he have sex with? gah!!@# who had sex WITH HIM!?

[AMCrenshaw]

Otherwise, I am glad to hear the Good News; it was bound to happen.



AMC

[Williebee]

See? I knew someone would go there.

:)

[blacbird]

This is actually the kind of thing he's pretty good at. Anybody here hoping he fails?

caw

[Bird of Prey]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32277010/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

News reports are stating a deal is done and he will be returning with both journalists.


If he's successful, I thank him, as I would think every American would. I think Bill has put his best foot forward here, using his position for the greater good. Given who he is dealing with, I totally commend him. . . .

[Robert Toy]

I hope he is successful

[Don]

I hope he succeeds. I didn't read the linky, was it an official trip or did he just go on his own? I hope he at least touched base with the SecState first. :)

[Magdalen]

I hope he at least touched base with the SecState first. :)

I don't think Hillary lets him past 2nd these days.


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/03/world/international-korea-north-clinton.html

Seriously, hope it works out.

[Don]

I don't think Hillary lets him past 2nd these days.
:ROFL:

[semilargeintestine]

I don't think Hillary lets him past 2nd these days.


Brilliant. :ROFL:

[Robert Toy]

Kim Jong Il prepares for beer summit with President Clinton





http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l253/RT_2006/LiveLeak-dot-com-197410-NorthKorean.jpg

[Robert Toy]

According to latest news

The two journalists have been released to Clinton.

[blacbird]

Journalists to be released:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32277010/ns/world_news-asiapacific

caw

[Bird of Prey]

It's quite amazing, really. I hope there isn't the usual cynical criticism to go with a job well done. Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Well done, very well done. . . . .

[William Haskins]

i'm glad he was able to secure the release of the americans.

i do wonder what he had to promise in order to make it happen. if he was able to simply instill in the dear leader that he was treading on seriously thin ice, then bravo.

if he undermined US positions, then that's not good.

if the obama administration sent him to play good cop to hillary's bad cop, then that's the way politics goes. i just hope it was not designed in such a way that it weakened the american position.

officially, however, the white house has denied any role, which is something of a headscratcher, since obama's comments on the imprisonment of the american citizens was met with flaccid "disappointment" and the big dog goes there "privately", swoops in for a day and secures their release.

the big loser in all this, of course, is al gore.

[Bird of Prey]

i'm glad he was able to secure the release of the americans.

i do wonder what he had to promise in order to make it happen. if he was able to simply instill in the dear leader that he was treading on seriously thin ice, then bravo.

if he undermined US positions, then that's not good.

if the obama administration sent him to play good cop to hillary's bad cop, then that's the way politics goes. i just hope it was not designed in such a way that it weakened the american position.

officially, however, the white house has denied any role, which is something of a headscratcher, since obama's comments on the imprisonment of the american citizens was met with flaccid "disappointment" and the big dog goes there "privately", swoops in for a day and secures their release.

the big loser in all this, of course, is al gore.Clinton as in Bill and Obama as in Barack are hardly friends. I think it was as simple as getting a nut his fifteen minutes of undeserved respect. The pattern is clear. He got it; we got the Americans. Clinton did well. . . .

[William Haskins]

it's naive to think that an american citizen, even an ex-president, can just jet over to the DPRK without clearance from the state department. obama is giving himself plausible deniability.

[ealexis]

I thank God that the two journalists are released. I heard last night Bill was headed there and said my prayers the right outcome. A great thing came from this, that's how I see it.

[dgiharris]

Clinton as in Bill and Obama as in Barack are hardly friends. I think it was as simple as getting a nut his fifteen minutes of undeserved respect. The pattern is clear. He got it; we got the Americans. Clinton did well. . . .

Yes,

North Korea only has one commodity.

Instability.

TO my knowledge, they don't have any main exports that bolster their economy.

They really are a pain in the ass and will keep being a pain in the ass because, well, that is their commodity. Every few years they start something and then we (the west) swoops in and makes a deal. There is some peace, then after a while the cycle starts over again.

*sigh*

This was nothing special, just part of their never ending cycle.

Mel...

[William Haskins]

I thank God that the two journalists are released. I heard last night Bill was headed there and said my prayers the right outcome. A great thing came from this, that's how I see it.

one could argue, however, that thousands, perhaps millions, more north koreans could die of starvation, be executed, or replace these girls in the labor camps owing to the breathing room clinton might have given the regime through positive propaganda.

[William Haskins]

TO my knowledge, they don't have any main exports that bolster their economy.

sure they do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/21/burma-north-korea-nuclear-clinton

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/25/world/fg-ussyria25

[dgiharris]

one could argue, however, that thousands, perhaps millions, more north koreans could die of starvation, be executed, or replace these girls in the labor camps owing to the breathing room clinton might have given the regime through positive propaganda.

I would wonder, those who would propose this argument. Would they support an invasion of North Korea?

Or put another way, what is the alternative? Sanctions? North Korea plays that game better than we do. They'd just kick off their nuclear program again and then we'd go in and make another 'deal'.

Basically, N. Korea is such a big ball of shit that I do see any real alternative for dealing with them in the short term.

At least, no alternative the public will support.

sure they do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/21/burma-north-korea-nuclear-clinton
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/25/world/fg-ussyria25
Well, this helps makes my point. Their only commodity is instability.

Mel..

[Bird of Prey]

one could argue, however, that thousands, perhaps millions, more north koreans could die of starvation, be executed, or replace these girls in the labor camps owing to the breathing room clinton might have given the regime through positive propaganda.

That's quite an accusation. If there's a fit at all, I think it's a better fit with the Neoconservative element of the Republican party, certainly not Clinton. I haven't seen a shred of positive propaganda on this side, and the NK's have long since lost any starry eyes or gullibility on the Kim front. He's not long for this world, and his son and heir apparent, being young and valuing life, isn't going to be the same desperate fool for notoriety. I'm sure he's realized the world is laughing. . . .

[William Haskins]

"Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it," the news agency reported. "Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/nkorea.clinton/index.html

Mr Kim’s “special pardon” was a sign of North Koreas’s “humanitarian and peace-loving policy”, the state’s official news agency said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6738756.ece

[Bird of Prey]

"Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it," the news agency reported. "Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/nkorea.clinton/index.html

Mr Kim’s “special pardon” was a sign of North Koreas’s “humanitarian and peace-loving policy”, the state’s official news agency said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6738756.ece

William, if I had two human beings facing illegitimate jail time, particularly knowing it's a decade or more and having an inkling of the abuse they would endure, I'd say darn near anything. We're dealing with a leader who is completely off his rocker. Eveybody's aware of this - I would think particularly you - and as such, should cut Clinton some slack.

[Magdalen]

Originally Posted by Don
I hope he at least touched base with the SecState first. :)

I don't think Hillary lets him past 2nd these days.

Journalists to be released:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32277010/ns/world_news-asiapacific

caw
Looks like Billy will be sliding into home tonight!

[blacbird]

I don't think Hillary lets him past 2nd these days.


Looks like Billy will be sliding into home tonight!

Might not need to slide. Could be fast enough to get there standing up.

caw

[dgiharris]

William, if I had two human beings facing illegitimate jail time, particularly knowing it's a decade or more and having an inkling of the abuse they would endure, I'd say darn near anything. We're dealing with a leader who is completely off his rocker. Eveybody's aware of this - I would think particularly you - and as such, should cut Clinton some slack.

Agreed,

prisons the world over (moreso in oppressive countries) are filled with people who were/are standing on principle and suffering for the rest of their lives because they refused to sign a piece of paper admitting some nonsense that EVERYBODY knows is bullshit anyways.

Yes, there are times when one should fight the good fight and 'stand on principles' but this is definitely not one of those times. Especially, if I were one of those journalists.

Mel...

[nighttimer]

one could argue, however, that thousands, perhaps millions, more north koreans could die of starvation, be executed, or replace these girls in the labor camps owing to the breathing room clinton might have given the regime through positive propaganda.

One could argue that. But it's a crock of cynical crap.

This is what matters.

http://images.politico.com/global/news/090804_lee_ling_ap_624.jpg

The lives of the people of North Korea were not made one iota worse today by President Clinton's actions than they were yesterday.

[Smiling Ted]

one could argue, however, that thousands, perhaps millions, more north koreans could die of starvation, be executed, or replace these girls in the labor camps owing to the breathing room clinton might have given the regime through positive propaganda.

Believe it or not, the great fear of ALL nations that must deal with North Korea - from China to South Korea to US - is the collapse of the NK state. It would represent a humanitarian crisis on an enormous scale, and none of the states involved in the six-party talks is prepared to mitigate that disaster.

[William Haskins]

One could argue that. But it's a crock of cynical crap.

cynical, perhaps. but i disagree that it's crap. if you negotiate with a criminal to release two of millions of hostages, any concession that extends his control is bad news for those still at his mercy.


The lives of the people of North Korea were not made one iota worse today by President Clinton's actions than they were yesterday.

a crock of pollyanna crap.

[nighttimer]

Pollyanna crap?

That's not what you were saying before.

the mealy-mouth response from the US government and the policy of silence on the part of al gore and current are a disgrace.

Two months ago you were bitching about "mealy-mouth" responses from the U.S. government in your own little provocatively entitled, "Current Cowards" threads.

Now, that Ling and Lee have been set free by virtue of President Clinton's actions doubtlessly undertaken with the blessing of the U.S. government, you're singing a different tune.

one could argue, however, that thousands, perhaps millions, more north koreans could die of starvation, be executed, or replace these girls in the labor camps owing to the breathing room clinton might have given the regime through positive propaganda.

Funny how you didn't seem to give a good goddamn about those same poor North Koreans in the heat of the moment then. Now you're whining about how Clinton got them home without knowing one thing about how he accomplished it. You're just guessing Bill gave away the candy store to Kim Jong II because the alternative is to admit he got the job done.

...and you'd sooner suck a carton of eggs than admit that.

But by all means, stick to bluster and doomsday scenarios. You do have a flair for that kind of thing...that, and trying to find the downside of a positive accomplishment.

Enjoy your sour grapes. :(

[William Haskins]

Two months ago you were bitching about "mealy-mouth" responses from the U.S. government in your own little provocatively entitled, "Current Cowards" threads.

there's nothing inconsistent in my views then or now. it was important to bring the american citizens home. and as i (fucking clearly) stated upthread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3885692&postcount=16), if clinton was able to accomplish that without making concessions to a ruthless dictator, then i'm all for it.

your attempts to muddle my position because of your intense dislike for me only makes you look like the petty little man you are.

[Gregg]

According to the news on TV this morning, the release was set up before Clinton went to North Korea. No one knows what, if anything, we gave to Korea as a condition for release. It was an "unofficial" trip but cleared by the White House, Korea, and probably China.
It's possible Kim Jong-Il used the opportunity to try to prove what a great guy he is.
He can probably fool his own people, but most of the rest of the world knows what a dangerous thug he really is.

Unless there is more to it, good job.

[Christine N.]

Here's the thing: you can't go over there and argue with a man like that. It won't matter how right your cause is, that whackjob has made up his mind and will not budge. You won't convince him he's wrong, and you won't do your citizens being held any favors.

Apologize and let the girls get on with their lives. Done and done. Once the prisoners are away, then you can go on and say he's an idiot and a mental case.

It's called diplomacy.

[Shadow_Ferret]

"Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it," the news agency reported. "Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.

I thought it was standard policy NOT to deal with terrorists. I'm glad they're home, but at what cost politically? Brown nosing and ass kissing terrorists is never good.

[Sheryl Nantus]

anyone else crying their eyes out at the sight of the little girl clutching her mommy?

:cry:

I'm such a wuss...

[tjwriter]

I saw the clip this morning and teared up, but it was not appropriate to cry at work, so I sucked it all in.

[Don]

I thought it was standard policy NOT to deal with terrorists. I'm glad they're home, but at what cost politically? Brown nosing and ass kissing terrorists is never good.
Haven't you heard? "The ends justify the means" is the new mantra. Right there beside "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"

[Williebee]

Meet the new Mantra. Same as the old Mantra ?

[Robert Toy]

IMHO the fact that Clinton let the ladies off first and allowed them to meet their families before he stepped off was a class act.

[Shadow_Ferret]

IMHO the fact that Clinton let the ladies off first and allowed them to meet their families before he stepped off was a class act.What I found interesting was the fact that Al Gore was at the press conference. I mean, this has nothing to do with Global warming!

[nighttimer]

your attempts to muddle my position because of your intense dislike for me only makes you look like the petty little man you are.

I don't have any like or dislike for you Mr. Haskins to the extent I think about you at all.

It's your positions I'm not too wild about. That's what I'm critical of. I could care less about you as a person.

I thought it was standard policy NOT to deal with terrorists. I'm glad they're home, but at what cost politically? Brown nosing and ass kissing terrorists is never good.

"Brown nosing and ass-kissing terrorists?" Well, that's one way of looking at the situation.

Here's another.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20090805/i/r4119446151.jpg?x=400&y=291&q=85&sig=Tc.6P_QbzG3o8UUlf2DqjQ--

[Caramia]

I stayed up just to watch them arrive and am thrilled and relieved for them and their families. I couldn't help imagining folks with loved ones in similar positions who do not have such connections as working for Gore or a high profile family member.

Maybe this will help others in such situations and shine the spotlight on mistakes we should avoid when in other lands that carry different laws. I know, not likely :)

[dmytryp]

It is great to see them freed. It is immediately satisfying. It is also vastly important to know and to weigh their release against the price paid. This is the reason why the policy of most democracies is not to negotiate with terrorists.

These two women are not the last Americans to fall into the hands of US's enemies. There is an american soldier in Taliban'shands today. The price for the next hostages will be determined by the price paid today. Israel, unfortuately, is all too familiar with this situation. And our willingness to pay in past deals had finally led us to the impasse that we see today with regards to Gilad Shalit. Eventually thprice becomes too great.

[Williebee]

CNN has this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/05/nkorea.journalists.background/index.html) as the "story behind Clinton's trip"

This might be interesting:

During a phone call with their families in mid-July, the journalists told their relatives that they had been informed by the North Koreans that they would be willing to grant them amnesty if an envoy like former President Clinton would come to Pyongyang to secure their release.

Wonder if the "like President Clinton" was an example from the speaker, or a request from Pyongyang?

[William Haskins]

I don't have any like or dislike for you Mr. Haskins to the extent I think about you at all.

It's your positions I'm not too wild about. That's what I'm critical of. I could care less about you as a person.

it's couldn't care less.

that said, i accept your statement at face value. however, a cursory examination of comments you've made to me, and about me, that have strayed into the personal undermine your innocent act.

[Gregg]

Obama has put himself (and the country) at risk here. Maybe.

These events just might embolden other terrorist/dictator/thugs to kidnap our citizens and demand we send someone famous to pay lip service to them and their ideas. What great publicity and propaganda for them!

What we did does legitimize these thugs to a degree. What do we do if there is a next time?
Only time will tell if this was a risk worth taking.

In the meantime, I'm very happy for the two women and their families.

[Stew21]

Obama has put himself (and the country) at risk here. Maybe.

These events just might embolden other terrorist/dictator/thugs to kidnap our citizens and demand we send someone famous to pay lip service to them and their ideas. What great publicity and propaganda for them!

What we did does legitimize these thugs to a degree. What do we do if there is a next time?
Only time will tell if this was a risk worth taking.

In the meantime, I'm very happy for the two women and their families.
I completely agree. I'm happy for the women and their families, but the politics of it are potentially very dangerous.

[MacAllister]

Right...because America's Jack Bauer-style democracy has been so very successful, for the last eight years. This weeny-ass diplomacy business went out of fashion decades ago.

[William Haskins]

in fairness, mac, we don't know what the diplomacy was.

[dmytryp]

Right...because America's Jack Bauer-style democracy has been so very successful, for the last eight years. This weeny-ass diplomacy business went out of fashion decades ago.
With Carter? :)

[LaceWing]

I'm waiting for Robert Toy to return to the thread he started (*waves to Robert*) and maybe add some commentary on ye olde and most venerable Oriental recognition of the importance of "saving face." I get that approach and wouldn't mind exploring it further.

[clintl]

Yep. I think that's what it was all about - a way for North Korea to get out of a problem it had created for itself by saving face. And to my mind, it's a pretty cheap and harmless solution to the problem. I don't think it's going to raise the danger any more than it already is to Americans traveling in dangerous parts of the world.

[Robert Toy]

I'm waiting for Robert Toy to return to the thread he started (*waves to Robert*) and maybe add some commentary on ye olde and most venerable Oriental recognition of the importance of "saving face." I get that approach and wouldn't mind exploring it further.
*waves* Hi!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UkSg_B62mQ

Sorry, I couldn't help myself...it was a great movie.

back to saving face:

The need to maintain self image and avoid being embarrassed in public is a major factor with many races, not just Orientals.

I was always taught that saving face was all about showing respect for another person (and hopefully, receiving respect).

The only thing that one displays by belittling another person is their ignorance.

[LaceWing]

The need to maintain self image and avoid being embarrassed in public is a major factor with many races, not just Orientals.


And now I'm led to compare this cultural tradition with it's opposite, in which if no one else will save my face, I'll have to get in someone else's face. Quite a contrast.

On the "too nice" side, the one I'm usually on, there might not be enough room for disagreement. On the other, where there's too much disagreement, there's sometimes not enough willingness to give as much attention to another as one demands for oneself. IMO.

Thanks for the movie trailer. If I come across a copy, I'll be screening it for myself.

[LaceWing]

And now I'm led to compare this cultural tradition with it's opposite, in which if no one else will save my face, I'll have to get in someone else's face. Quite a contrast.

On the "too nice" side, the one I'm usually on, there might not be enough room for disagreement. On the other, where there's too much disagreement, there's sometimes not enough willingness to give as much attention to another as one demands for oneself. IMO.

Thanks for the movie trailer. If I come across a copy, I'll be screening it for myself.

(And yes, peeps, you're right. I absolutely am commenting on how we carry on here at P&CE, and acknowledging that I have a bias towards/preference for the non-confrontational. I'm working on finding a happy medium. Further insights would be appreciated.)

[CACTUSWENDY]

From the months of negotiations I am happy to see the gals released. They make this sound like it only took like 3 hours to get it all done.....lol.

We will never know what all took place for months to get this done. I am sure their families are thrilled. My heart goes out to them.

[Williebee]

We will never know what all took place ... to get this done.

And isn't that the truth of so many things? :)

[dgiharris]

According to the news on TV this morning, the release was set up before Clinton went to North Korea. No one knows what, if anything, we gave to Korea as a condition for release. It was an "unofficial" trip but cleared by the White House, Korea, and probably China.
It's possible Kim Jong-Il used the opportunity to try to prove what a great guy he is.
He can probably fool his own people, but most of the rest of the world knows what a dangerous thug he really is.

Unless there is more to it, good job.

There is a difference between a public concession and a private concession. All governments make private concessions and as long as they are private, I have no problem with it.

I thought it was standard policy NOT to deal with terrorists. I'm glad they're home, but at what cost politically? Brown nosing and ass kissing terrorists is never good.

Obama has put himself (and the country) at risk here. Maybe.

These events just might embolden other terrorist/dictator/thugs to kidnap our citizens and demand we send someone famous to pay lip service to them and their ideas.

Couple of points. First off, if you have your own country you are NOT a terrorist. You are a soveriegn nation and within your borders you get to make any screwball laws you like.

Second. We send Diplomats to countries (facists, dictatorships, democracties, etc) all the time to negotiate things so this really isn't much different.

Third. There is a difference between a terrorist kidnapping someone and a journalist being arrested inside the host country. Regardless of the screwball law (like hmmm not being covered in head to toe so men can't see your evil sinful body) they were arrested, it is 'legal'.

Right...because America's Jack Bauer-style democracy has been so very successful, for the last eight years. This weeny-ass diplomacy business went out of fashion decades ago.

Agreed. What the fuck? A diplomat goes over and NEGOTIATES and we get what we want and we're still not fucking happy?

I guess its been so long since we've actually negotiated that we forgot what it is or even what it's like.

Diplomacy involves give and take and as the public we will rarely know the details. What we will know are the results and in this case the results are two journalists coming home.

One battle at a time people.

Mel...

[William Haskins]

it's somewhat insulting to see these repeated references to any misgivings about what might have been promised as stupid.

look, i've said before and i'll say again—if clinton went and offered kim jong-il a way out of a thorny situation, with no political concessions, i have no problem with it. if he got the girls out with strategic concessions that do nothing to bolster DPRK's positions regarding six-party talks or offer no breathing room for his regime (which was severely on the ropes), then i have no problem with it.

but if we made promises that blow up the potential for six-party talks, make japan and south korea less secure, or open the door for other rogue behavior in the anticipation that it will be rewarded, that is not good.

so, feel free to disagree. but it's pretty annoying to see people who recognize the real political implications of a deal like this basically being called stupid or warmongers.

[nighttimer]

There's no pleasing the armchair generals, couch commandos and dipshit diplomats who are experts at second-guessing and pretty impotent about coming up with viable and workable solutions that both serves the objective and protects the national interest.

There's no pleasing them and it's a waste of time to try. Some people are imperious to both logic and common sense and are going to find the negative in every situation.

I applaud the families of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, every person in the world who expressed their concern and support, President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, the State Department and the Obama Administration.

Diplomacy and patience work when given a chance. The cynics and nay-sayers don't know a thing about that.

[William Haskins]

exhibit A

[semilargeintestine]

Couple of points. First off, if you have your own country you are NOT a terrorist. You are a soveriegn nation and within your borders you get to make any screwball laws you like.


Right, you just "support" terrorism like Iran.

[Kaiser-Kun]

So Clinton went to free two reporters using diplomacy with no bloodbath. Damn, that's a sure drawback on the reputation of the U.S. Dammit, you stupid Clinton! Now terrorist evil communist countries all over the world will start thinking that problems can be solved without violence! Way to go, dumbass!

Edit: I was being sarcastic.

[Zoombie]

I'm just glad these guys are home.

Girls.

Whatever.

[Kaiser-Kun]

I'm just glad these guys are home.

Girls.

Whatever.

But no bombs were dropped. Soooo anticlimax.

[semilargeintestine]

So Clinton went to free two reporters using diplomacy with no bloodbath. Damn, that's a sure drawback on the reputation of the U.S. Dammit, you stupid Clinton! Now terrorist evil communist countries all over the world will start thinking that problems can be solved without violence! Way to go, dumbass!

Edit: I was being sarcastic.

That's an illogical argument. Most terrorist countries do not think the same way we do. Not exerting your power is a sign of weakness. If everyone believed in diplomacy, we wouldn't have nearly as much violence or as many problems as we do.

[William Haskins]

i invite you to go back through this thread and find anyone suggesting we bomb north korea.

in the absence of that, you're just engaging in bullshit trolling.

[LaceWing]

I couldn't help comparing this to novels I've read and movies I've seen in which hostage negotiators psych out the kidnapper.

And yeah, it concerned me too, William, that concessions could have been made that we and others may have to pay for later. I reassure myself on that score by assuming those involved weighed that very question before making the move; maybe that's a stretch, but I have to hope it isn't.

Besides, I just really like "the story" of how it could mean there's a new kind of diplomatic cleverness being developed.

[Gretad08]

That's an illogical argument. Most terrorist countries do not think the same way we do. Not exerting your power is a sign of weakness. If everyone believed in diplomacy, we wouldn't have nearly as much violence or as many problems as we do.


Oh, you don't mean to say that North Korea is unreasonable do you? I mean, come on, Kim Jon Il's the epitome of reason right?!

[Kaiser-Kun]

Oh, you don't mean to say that North Korea is unreasonable do you? I mean, come on, Kim Jon Il's the epitome of reason right?!

Of course that if by some reason, such evil countries acted irrationally, then anything the U.S. did shouldn't affect their reaction, so a pacific solution would still be preferable.

[semilargeintestine]

Right. Let's bomb their country. That worked wonders for Iraq's road to peace.

Is it a prerequisite that in order to post on AW you have to be incapable of having a discussion without using a horribly stereotypical example of poor debate skills? It seems like every time I make a point, the other person's response is, "Oh yeah, well pththththtbbbbbt!"

Oh, you don't mean to say that North Korea is unreasonable do you? I mean, come on, Kim Jon Il's the epitome of reason right?!

Oh, right. I mean, yes, they are perfectly reasonable. Ahem.

[Jcomp]

It simply doesn't seem logical that Clinton would be sent on a mission to free a couple of people if the means to do it would severely undermine the U.S.'s security in the region or the security of our allies.

At this point, everyone that's "upset" seems to be upset about the "maybe perhaps coulda idunno-but-what-if" chance that we gave up way too much to get these journalists back, on some Herschel Walker trade shit.

Except nobody knows, so um... what's all the grumbling really about...?

[Kaiser-Kun]

i invite you to go back through this thread and find anyone suggesting we bomb north korea.

in the absence of that, you're just engaging in bullshit trolling.

Is it a prerequisite that in order to post on AW you have to be incapable of having a discussion without using a horribly stereotypical example of poor debate skills? It seems like every time I make a point, the other person's response is, "Oh yeah, well pththththtbbbbbt!"


Perhaps some could try reading what I posted before going all "Oh, a different opinion. Must be a bullshitting troll with poor debate skills."

[semilargeintestine]

I'm just glad they're back. That crazy butthole is going to do whatever he wants whether we use Bill Clinton or a bomb.

[Kaiser-Kun]

I'm just glad they're back. That crazy butthole is going to do whatever he wants whether we use Bill Clinton or a bomb.

Then it doesn't matters if we prefer to use Clinton rather than the bomb.

[semilargeintestine]

Perhaps some could try reading what I posted before going all "Oh, a different opinion. Must be a bullshitting troll with poor debate skills."

Perhaps...

[semilargeintestine]

Then it doesn't matters if we prefer to use Clinton rather than the bomb.

My point was that people are saying we should have been more firm on them, but not sending Clinton there wouldn't change anything. The guy is a nutcase. They were able to be returned without violence, and that really won't change NK's view on America. That's all that matters.

[Kaiser-Kun]

My point was that people are saying we should have been more firm on them, but not sending Clinton there wouldn't change anything. The guy is a nutcase. They were able to be returned without violence, and that really won't change NK's view on America. That's all that matters.

And my point was that a violent policy would only bring more violence, and thus I am happy that they chose the diplomatic route. Maybe it does incite the enemies of the U.S, but it gives everyone else the chance to see that they have changed from a warmongering country to one open to dialogue.

I should have used less sarcasm. I apologize if my post was too open for misunderstanding.

[rugcat]

look, i've said before and i'll say again—if clinton went and offered kim jong-il a way out of a thorny situation, with no political concessions, i have no problem with it.I think we can be pretty sure that the deal was struck, or at least there were some basic guarantees given by the North Koreans before Clinton ever set foot there. Neither he nor the US would have taken the chance of going to North Korea and coming back empty.

The previous admin, as well as many people here on AW, believe you do not negotiate or make concessions to regimes like NK or Iran, and that "rewarding" them for their bad behavior simply encourages more of the same.

That policy has not worked well, however. The hardline concept of isolation and punishment has not resulted in the US being in a better position viv a vis these countries.

The alternate way of looking at things is that you do indeed talk to these regimes, no matter how repressive and dangerous they may be -- in fact, all the more reason to do so. The art of diplomacy is to convince them to act in certain ways, and stop acting in others. The only way to do this is to convince them that it's in their self interest -- that they will be better off if they go along.

Positive reinforcement, in terms of giving them something they want in exchange for them doing something we want is part of the process. Diplomacy does not always work. There's bad diplomacy, that ends up making things worse, just as there are ill advised wars. But as a means of securing what we want, it does seem to be a better option than the other.

[Bird of Prey]

I don't understand the controversy at all. Clinton went over and brought two American journalists home. Re: Mr. Kim: what kind of leverage does anybody really think the head of a pitifully poor country has, particularly as he has a foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel?? He wanted attention and he got it. What the heck do you folks think that Clinton gave up exactly? A pair of tickets to the next Madonna concert?

[robeiae]

Couple of points. First off, if you have your own country you are NOT a terrorist. You are a soveriegn nation and within your borders you get to make any screwball laws you like.
Who is the "you" here, Mel? Kim? He HAS his OWN country, so that is it?

[LaceWing]

it's somewhat insulting to see these repeated references to any misgivings about what might have been promised as stupid.

look, i've said before and i'll say again—if clinton went and offered kim jong-il a way out of a thorny situation, with no political concessions, i have no problem with it. if he got the girls out with strategic concessions that do nothing to bolster DPRK's positions regarding six-party talks or offer no breathing room for his regime (which was severely on the ropes), then i have no problem with it.

but if we made promises that blow up the potential for six-party talks, make japan and south korea less secure, or open the door for other rogue behavior in the anticipation that it will be rewarded, that is not good.

so, feel free to disagree. but it's pretty annoying to see people who recognize the real political implications of a deal like this basically being called stupid or warmongers.

Agreed.

I expect that several parties were consulted before Clinton's trip, all the countries affected probably. What kind of concessions might have been offered? And what if getting the reporters out was necessary before the talks, to take away that threat ahead of time?

Just rambling; it's clear you've researched more angles than I have.

[Don]

Kim got Madonna tickets? The Queen only got an iPod!

[Kaiser-Kun]

Kim got Madonna tickets? The Queen only got an iPod!

Maybe the Queen P.R. staff could've made more action figures of her.

http://deadenders.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kim-jong-il-3.jpg

[dmytryp]

I couldn't help comparing this to novels I've read and movies I've seen in which hostage negotiators psych out the kidnapper.

And yeah, it concerned me too, William, that concessions could have been made that we and others may have to pay for later. I reassure myself on that score by assuming those involved weighed that very question before making the move; maybe that's a stretch, but I have to hope it isn't.

Besides, I just really like "the story" of how it could mean there's a new kind of diplomatic cleverness being developed.

I read somewhere (can't find it now) that there is the possibility that the NK said they would deal if specifically Clinton came.

As for the possible quid-pro-quo... There are people speculating that the release of an American journalist (I think she was a journalist) in Iran several months ago was secured by promising the release of Iranian "diplomats" later on (which happened last month I believe) and some possible promises vis-a-vis future negotiations. This are, of course, speculations, but at least the first part sounds very probable. Something similar might have been struck here. Now, whether one was worth the other -- that's a really tough question, but as William pointed out, to accuse people who wonder what real price was paid for securing their release warmongers and other derogatory comments are really unhelpfull.

The previous admin, as well as many people here on AW, believe you do not negotiate or make concessions to regimes like NK or Iran, and that "rewarding" them for their bad behavior simply encourages more of the same.

That policy has not worked well, however. The hardline concept of isolation and punishment has not resulted in the US being in a better position viv a vis these countries.



That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. So far, Obama's "tough diplomacy" had brought him exactly zero successes in issues that really matter. Instead he was publicly humiliated by Saudis, Quwaities (for G-d's sake, US saved them from Saddam), Jordanians and the PA (when they just explicitly called the arab states not to cooperate with US initiatives to get them a state) not to mention Iran and NK. So, yeah, this is really working well so far.

But really, I think there is a major disconnect between what Bush admin really did and what people think it did. True, their rhetoric was rather blunt, but their actions -- not so much. How much difference there is between Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Clinton's actions in the Balkans, or his father's actions in Iraq? During Bush's term Lybia peacefully abandoned its nuclear program. Pro-western forces were strengthened in Lebanon. Israel felt secure enough with American guarantees to disengage from Gaza (regardless of what had happened later). Anapolys process was launched (again regardless to the results) etc. Instead, people concentrate on his rhetoric and Iraq (which, by the way, was not fought alone, but with allies, even if France and Germany sat this one out).

[LaceWing]

According to this AP article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqVsvaS4WO_7LXrY6kWGS5B6IB_AD99STE8O0), the negotiations were a done deal before Clinton's trip. And the possible bargaining chip? NK wants bilateral discussions with the U.S. rather than or separate from the six-party format.

[dgiharris]

All, i'm saying is that we don't know the conditions of their release do we?

Seems that many in this thread are firing up the torches and sharpening their pitchforks without these facts.

that's all i'm saying.

Mel...

[William Haskins]

i don't see that at all, at least from my perspective. go back and read my posts. they've been measured.

[robeiae]

I've measured you for a pine box, myself.

[William Haskins]

when and where?

(please say soon and nearby)

[nighttimer]

According to this AP article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqVsvaS4WO_7LXrY6kWGS5B6IB_AD99STE8O0), the negotiations were a done deal before Clinton's trip. And the possible bargaining chip? NK wants bilateral discussions with the U.S. rather than or separate from the six-party format.

"Want" doesn't mean "get."

I'm at a loss at what the critics at pissing and moaning about. What do they want?

Do they want Obama to come out and say something like, "Nah. Too much heat from the home folks." We'll ship Lee and Ling back to you."

:Huh:

[LaceWing]

It's hard to figure, NT, what's really going on. I get news items, comments here, ideas from fiction, and my own imagination to work with. It's just irresistible trying to read between the lines, even when I know that I don't know enough. I'm better at identifying what's been written and what I'm reading into it. Reporters have a tough job.

[cethklein]

My point was that people are saying we should have been more firm on them, but not sending Clinton there wouldn't change anything. The guy is a nutcase. They were able to be returned without violence, and that really won't change NK's view on America. That's all that matters.

Exactly. Sending Clinton didn't "legitimize" Kim. To him and his brainwashed people, he's already a demi-god. And I doubt anyone outside north Korea now considers him legitimate. Two women were saved from a hellhole of a place. That's all that matters. north Korea gained nothing here.

[cethklein]

All, i'm saying is that we don't know the conditions of their release do we?

Seems that many in this thread are firing up the torches and sharpening their pitchforks without these facts.

that's all i'm saying.

Mel...

since Clinton wasn't there officially, there couldn't have been too many conditions. Kim thinks Clinton's visit legitimizes him. Let him think that, because it doesn't. Sending Clinton was the smartest move because it got the girls without using official channels. In other words, we conned Kim jong-il. Feels pretty good if you ask me.

[semilargeintestine]

That's a good way to look at it.

[ColoradoGuy]

I'm at a loss at what the critics at pissing and moaning about. What do they want?
Surely you know? What they really, really hate is seeing Bill's face in the news again. Plus happy endings, apparently.

[William Haskins]

SEOUL — North Korea has been using Bill Clinton's visit to Pyongyang last week to promote leader Kim Jong-Il's son as the communist nation's next head of state, a news report said Sunday.

Former US president Clinton traveled to Pyongyang last week to take home two journalists jailed for having illegally entered North Korea.

Seoul's Yonhap news agency, quoting an unnamed source, said Pyongyang's National Security Agency was praising Kim Jong-Un, third son and heir apparent to Kim Jong-Il, 67, for having engineered the episode.

According to Yonhap, the North's powerful secret police said in a recent "internal lecture" that "General Kim Jong-Un's artifice let former US president Clinton cross the Pacific to apologise to the Great Leader (Kim Jong-Il).

"It was all made possible thanks to General Kim Jong-Un's extraordinary prophecy and outstanding tactics."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZ6LBpl3NsNDa4sdd17uTlK4IRNw

[robeiae]

Why do I think the guy was playing XBox throughout Clinton's entire visit and isn't even aware of his own mad diplomacy skillz?

[POPASMOKE]

Why do I think the guy was playing XBox throughout Clinton's entire visit and isn't even aware of his own mad diplomacy skillz?


I don't think beloved leader would have authorized you to have had those thoughts Rob.

I'm going to have to report you. Sorry!

[dgiharris]

SEOUL — North Korea has been using Bill Clinton's visit to Pyongyang last week to promote leader Kim Jong-Il's son as the communist nation's next head of state, a news report said Sunday.

Former US president Clinton traveled to Pyongyang last week to take home two journalists jailed for having illegally entered North Korea.

Seoul's Yonhap news agency, quoting an unnamed source, said Pyongyang's National Security Agency was praising Kim Jong-Un, third son and heir apparent to Kim Jong-Il, 67, for having engineered the episode.

According to Yonhap, the North's powerful secret police said in a recent "internal lecture" that "General Kim Jong-Un's artifice let former US president Clinton cross the Pacific to apologise to the Great Leader (Kim Jong-Il).

"It was all made possible thanks to General Kim Jong-Un's extraordinary prophecy and outstanding tactics."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZ6LBpl3NsNDa4sdd17uTlK4IRNw

William, I suppose I just don't possess the gray matter required to understand your point.

Basically, what I get from this thread and many hardliner GOP types is that since this visit isn't 100% in the US's favor and since we don't know what took place then we shouldn't laud the release of the journalists and give the White House their due credit for a favorable outcome? We should be highly skeptical, even view this with a certain amount of negativity because we don't know what deal was struck? And not only that, but going over there and getting the journalists have also helped NK legitamize themselves as indicated by your posting above. Which of course being a facist dictatorship with 100% control of their media and populace is something that they really needed from us.

The White House takes a diplomatic approach, an approach GOP hardliners oppose, the approach works in this instance, and now GOP hardliners are scrambling to save face by making mountains out of molehills on all the negative aspects associated with this event.

"Yes, we got the journalists back BUT we don't know the price." So rather than focus on the postive KNOWN outcome we would rather focus on negative UNKNOWN events that may or may not have happened.

And yes, i've read the thread.

Mel...

[escritora]

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/world/asia/07korea.html?em)

“She did say that they touched North Korean territory very, very briefly,” Ms. Ling said of her sister, adding later, “She said that it was maybe 30 seconds, and everything just got sort of chaotic. It’s a very powerful story and she does want to share it.”

If that's the case, I do find it annoying that the U.S. government intervened.

[dgiharris]

If that's the case, I do find it annoying that the U.S. government intervened.

I feel it is the responsibility of every government to care for their citizens.

Even if they committed a known crime, I still feel a government has a responsibility to try to help that citizen 'within reason'.

IMHO, there is and should exist a bond between the government and its citizens. They have a duty to one another.

Also, there is a difference between a mistake and a crime.

But looking at the politics of this. Getting the story from North Koreans about their lives and struggles etc. does have some benefit for the West and is in our interest to get those stories. Also, this publicity (with the right spin) can also benefit the West by reaffirming how 'bad' NK is.

Mel...

[escritora]

I feel it is the responsibility of every government to care for their citizens.

Even if they committed a known crime, I still feel a government has a responsibility to try to help that citizen 'within reason'.

IMHO, there is and should exist a bond between the government and its citizens. They have a duty to one another.


In this case the responsibility that the government owes is to the U.S. citizenry, not individual citizens.

But looking at the politics of this. Getting the story from North Koreans about their lives and struggles etc. does have some benefit for the West and is in our interest to get those stories. Also, this publicity (with the right spin) can also benefit the West by reaffirming how 'bad' NK is.

Current TV didn't assign Laura Ling and company to investigate NK.

Anyway, a few years ago Lisa Ling entered NK under false pretenses. She made an entire documentary on NK's 'badness.' The West and Laura Ling can turn to Lisa's video for affirmation that NK is 'bad.'

IMO, of course.

[Robert Toy]

The Obama administration said Sunday it is willing to hold direct talks with North Korea over its nuclear weapons if it first resumes international negotiations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8287259

[William Haskins]

mel,

i don't consider myself a GOP hardliner, but my point is simply that—between NK's nuclear director meeting clinton at the airport and the internal propaganda of notching it up as a stroke of brilliance on the part of the heir apparent—the situation has been something of a PR coup for NK.

factor in that the obama admin has no muddied the waters by saying it will engage in bilateral talks within the context of the six-way talks, it has once again been the case that NK has been rewarded for bad behavior.

nothing about this post suggests that we should nuke north koreak or that we should not have pursued the americans' release.

[dgiharris]

In this case the responsibility that the government owes is to the U.S. citizenry, not individual citizens. .

But individual citizens ARE the citizenry.

We identify and empathize with those citizens throughout the world because one day it could be us, on vacation in the Middle East or Asian, whom are caught in the middle of a problem.

When that happens, we want the security of knowing that our government will stand behind us and do what they can and not wash their hands of us and say, "Oh, sorry, you're abroad and now on your own."

The Preamble to the Declaration of INdependance is "We the people". The government and its citizens have a responsibility to one another. It flows both ways. And like family, it needs to hold REGARDLESS of the circumstances. Good or bad. Thick or thin. IMO.

Mel...

... my point is simply that—between NK's nuclear director meeting clinton at the airport and the internal propaganda of notching it up as a stroke of brilliance on the part of the heir apparent—the situation has been something of a PR coup for NK.

I can concede that NK has managed to use the spin on this to their advantage. But I don't see it as all that helpful. Or put another way. It's like Bill Gates finding a $20 bill. meh. They have a facist dictatorship that controls 100% of pretty much everything over there. Now they have a media report citing themselves as brilliant international strategists. meh.

factor in that the obama admin has now muddied the waters by saying it will engage in bilateral talks within the context of the six-way talks, it has once again been the case that NK has been rewarded for bad behavior.

Few things. I refuse to acknowledge the GOP point that simply talking to someone is rewarding for bad behavior. Obama has been crystal clear in his statements about how his administrations will engage in talks to our rivals. And polls show that a significant portion of the country is fine with that.

At this point, I think before we condem his adiministration we need to give them a chance. Again, our past stance hasn't produced the desired approach so I want to try something different.

Lets see what happens with these talks/negotiations. Also, we need to have some faith in our leadership. It is possible to coordinate our negotiations with the 6 party talks to be more effective. Just as it is possible to completely fuck everything up. Neither is a forgone conclusion yet many on the GOP side of the fence want to declare the latter without even a trial period.

Let Obama's administration try, THEN lets comment Based on the results

Mel...

[robeiae]

Bill Gates isn't brutalizing and starving a population he is supposedly responsible for, Mel. I don't like the idea of North Korea finding a nickel, much less twenty bucks.

[escritora]

But individual citizens ARE the citizenry.


When I wrote "not individual citizens" I meant that the individual needs/desires of the two journalist should not come at an expense to the entire citizenry.


Also, I made it clear by writing in this case. So I'm not going to address the 'vacation' argument since it has nothing to do with what I wrote or the circumstances surrounding the journalists.

And like family, it needs to hold REGARDLESS of the circumstances. Good or bad. Thick or thin. IMO.

We disagree...and so it goes...

ETA:

Let Obama's administration try, THEN lets comment Based on the results

Sounds fair enough.

[semilargeintestine]

But individual citizens ARE the citizenry.

We identify and empathize with those citizens throughout the world because one day it could be us, on vacation in the Middle East or Asian, whom are caught in the middle of a problem.

When that happens, we want the security of knowing that our government will stand behind us and do what they can and not wash their hands of us and say, "Oh, sorry, you're abroad and now on your own."

The Preamble to the Declaration of INdependance is "We the people". The government and its citizens have a responsibility to one another. It flows both ways. And like family, it needs to hold REGARDLESS of the circumstances. Good or bad. Thick or thin. IMO.

Mel...



I can concede that NK has managed to use the spin on this to their advantage. But I don't see it as all that helpful. Or put another way. It's like Bill Gates finding a $20 bill. meh. They have a facist dictatorship that controls 100% of pretty much everything over there. Now they have a media report citing themselves as brilliant international strategists. meh.



Few things. I refuse to acknowledge the GOP point that simply talking to someone is rewarding for bad behavior. Obama has been crystal clear in his statements about how his administrations will engage in talks to our rivals. And polls show that a significant portion of the country is fine with that.

At this point, I think before we condem his adiministration we need to give them a chance. Again, our past stance hasn't produced the desired approach so I want to try something different.

Lets see what happens with these talks/negotiations. Also, we need to have some faith in our leadership. It is possible to coordinate our negotiations with the 6 party talks to be more effective. Just as it is possible to completely fuck everything up. Neither is a forgone conclusion yet many on the GOP side of the fence want to declare the latter without even a trial period.

Let Obama's administration try, THEN lets comment Based on the results

Mel...


I agree with most of what you said. The problem with talking is that many of the countries were are trying to talk to view that as admitting weakness. The Arab countries are trying to walk all over us, and Obama going to such lengths to appease them doesn't help our position. Just MHO though.

[William Haskins]

I refuse to acknowledge the GOP point that simply talking to someone is rewarding for bad behavior.

the kneejerk leap to partisanship around here is astounding. a "gop talking point"?

“We still want North Korea to come back to the negotiating table to be part of an international effort that will lead to denuclearization. But we’re not going to reward them … for half-measures. They now know what we and the world community expect.

“We want to make clear to North Korea that their behavior is not going to be rewarded. In the past, they believed that they have acted out — doing things which really went against the norms of the international community—and somehow then were rewarded. Those days are over.”

dick cheney? ronald reagan? dick nixon? no... obama's secretary of state hillary clinton.

"Given the belligerent manner in which they are constantly threatening their neighbors, I don't think there's any question that that would be a destabilizing situation that would be a profound threat to not only the United States' security, but to world security. This is a pattern they've come to expect. We are going to break that pattern."

lucifer? adolf hitler? newt gingrich? no... president obama.

[dgiharris]

When I wrote "not individual citizens" I meant that the individual needs/desires of the two journalist should not come at an expense to the entire citizenry. .

That is a fair point, sorry I mistook it.


...The problem with talking is that many of the countries were are trying to talk to view that as admitting weakness. The Arab countries are trying to walk all over us, and Obama going to such lengths to appease them doesn't help our position. Just MHO though.

The problem with not talking is that you are not talking. How is progress to be made? Or put another way, how well has not talking worked for us over the past 8 yrs.

IMHO, talking does not equate to appeasement. In fact, if done properly, talking is one of the quickest paths to War. Talking is merely a tool of diplomacy, nothing more and nothing less. It does not automatically equate to ANYTHING. It is all in the manner of 'how' you use it.

Diplomacy is complex and it behooves us to use every single tool in our tool belt to fix our problems. Just because we use one tool (talks) does not mean we can't use another (sanctions) simultaneously. The tools can and should work hand in hand.

Just because I'm a proponent to talks DOES NOT mean i'm against tougher actions and if necessary war. IMHO, these things work together and it all comes down to execution.

Mel...

[POPASMOKE]

IMHO, talking does not equate to appeasement. In fact, if done properly, talking is one of the quickest paths to War. Talking is merely a tool of diplomacy, nothing more and nothing less. It does not automatically equate to ANYTHING. It is all in the manner of 'how' you use it.

Diplomacy is complex and it behooves us to use every single tool in our tool belt to fix our problems. Just because we use one tool (talks) does not mean we can't use another (sanctions) simultaneously. The tools can and should work hand in hand.

Mel...

I'm sure many of you would find it hard to believe that at one time I equated talking to weakness. I know, it's a shocking admission.

I think Mel's right. Use all the tools at your disposal. At least that way, you can honestly declare you made every diplomatic effort possible before you were forced to stomp a mudhole through them.

[nighttimer]

mel,

i don't consider myself a GOP hardliner, but my point is simply that—between NK's nuclear director meeting clinton at the airport and the internal propaganda of notching it up as a stroke of brilliance on the part of the heir apparent—the situation has been something of a PR coup for NK.

factor in that the obama admin has no muddied the waters by saying it will engage in bilateral talks within the context of the six-way talks, it has once again been the case that NK has been rewarded for bad behavior.

nothing about this post suggests that we should nuke north koreak or that we should not have pursued the americans' release.

In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Chang (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574329662762687616.html), author of the book, Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World echoed some of Mr. Haskins' concerns when he said:

Now is not the time to throw Kim a lifeline. Another former president, Jimmy Carter, did just that when he made his own surprise visit to Pyongyang in June 1994. On that visit, Mr. Carter developed the outline of the Agreed Framework, which contemplated supplying light-water nuclear reactors to Kim in return for a freeze of his nuclear program and its eventual dismantlement.

However, Chang appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" program to talk about Lee and Ling's release and if North Korea benefited from the photo-op with Bill Clinton:

CONAN: And to be clear, I should point out you begin your article by pointing out that everybody should be happy that Laura Ling and Euna Lee were released.

Mr. CHANG: Oh, certainly. I mean, this is - you know, we had a terrific photo opportunity. People have been talking about Kim Jong Il wanting Bill Clinton to go to Pyongyang for their photo opportunities. Well, we had a better one. What we had was an American government rescuing American citizens, doing all it can to help people. And I'm sure that our opportunity, our photo opportunity, resonates with people of the world much better than theirs.

link (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=111581079)

It's a reasonable response to be glad the journalists have been released and are home while worrying what if anything was given up to secure their release.

But it is premature to suggest North Korea has been rewarded for its bad behavior? How? If restarting talks that could lead to the reduction or end of North Korea's nuclear weapons program is bad, what's good? Ignoring them and hoping they behave?

As Chang points out there are a lot of other foreigners held hostage by North Korea. South Korea and Japan would probably like to see their citizens released as well. This might just be a one-shot deal or it could be the framework to get them home as well.

Diplomacy can work when given a chance. Perhaps it won't resolve all the issues between North Korea and the world, but trying to pretend they don't exist is not a realistic option.

[William Haskins]

sad...

The US shifted its policy today, saying it is now willing to meet one on one with North Korea if that is helpful to bring Pyongyang back to the nuclear negotiations.

US envoy Stephen Bosworth got the green light from the other members of the 6-party talks, negotiations to rid Pyongyang of its nuclear program, during meetings in the region in recent days.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/us-shifts-policy-willing-to-meet-1on1-with-north-korea.html

[clintl]

It's sad because? When something is failing as spectacularly as the 6-party talks are failing, it's time to try something different.

[William Haskins]

but clint, the proposed goal of peeling off of the 6-party talks for a one-on-one talk is to get back to the six-party talks.

it makes no logical sense except as a diversionary tactic on the part of NK to delay any real negotiations. that the US would abide by it and, even worse, get buy-in from the other parties to the negotiations, is a sign of weakness and capitulation.

[raburrell]

but clint, the proposed goal of peeling off of the 6-party talks for a one-on-one talk is to get back to the six-party talks.

it makes no logical sense except as a diversionary tactic on the part of NK to delay any real negotiations. that the US would abide by it and, even worse, get buy-in from the other parties to the negotiations, is a sign of weakness and capitulation.

Either that or it's an acknowledgement of how far off a solution is.