Clinton Successful in North Korea? Not So Much

August 5th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

When former President Bill Clinton travelled to North Korea earlier this week in order to convince Pyongyang to release two American journalists it accused of spying, many (especially conservative) commentators worried his trip would be in vain and perhaps even counterproductive. Since the two were released yesterday we can now say that these concerns were at least partially unfounded.

That is of course exceptionally good news. Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, no matter where they are. Although Clinton is not an official member of the Obama administration it is clear that he represented the White House during his trip. At least unofficially; he is a former president, a Democrat and his wife is Obama’s secretary of state.

Clinton had to act unofficially because the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what the communists in charge of North Korea are. It is a terrorist state; it supports terrorist organizations, arrests innocent Americans in order to blackmail Washington D.C. and develops high-tech weapons and even WMD’s and tests them in an attempt to blackmail the region.

This is why Obama himself could not go to North Korea and why he sent Clinton.

In any case, the two journalists were released. In that regard we can say that the White House made the right decision to send the former president. As said, every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens and that is exactly what the Obama administration did yesterday. In this regard, then, Clinton’s trip constitutes a victory.

Sadly, politically it is an entirely different story altogether. According to several reports, this trip was not Clinton’s but the United Nations’ initiative. A North Korea delegation can be found near this organization’s headquarters. The UN negotiated between the two countries involved – which is reasonably normal considering the fact that the US does not want to negotiate directly with the communists of Pyongyang. It is rather hypocritical, however, that the White House did agree to negotiate with them indirectly. Through the UN or through one-on-one talks; the North does not care, as long as it can bully around the world’s only superpower.

North Korea told the US that it would only release the journalists if a well known politician would visit the country for a photo-op. The White House suggested Bill Richardson. No, he was not well known, the communists said. Next Obama et al. said former Vice President Al Gore might be willing to go on a trip and play the hero. Again the North declined the offer. Lastly, Bill Clinton was suggested. A former president, a man loved around the world; the perfect candidate. The North finally agreed. That was one heck of a diplomatic victory for the Asian state. They will use the photo-op to deceive their own people about their power and they will once again be respected (and feared) by other governments in the region; humiliating a superpower has that effect.

Additionally, many (probably rightly) fear that this was not the only concession the US agreed to. History has shown us that whenever the West gives North Korea something, it means America will lose a whole lot of money in so-called aid. ‘Aid’ that goes straight into the pockets of members of the regime, while their people are starving to death.

Pyongyang has played this game of blackmail for many decades already. Every single time it has engaged in it, it got away with it, this time is no exception. The money will undoubtedly be used by the regime to hang on to power. Clinton’s and Obama’s decision to give in to the North’s demands, then, probably means that the North Korean people will suffer longer than strictly necessary.

To sum up, the photo will be used for propaganda purposes and will improve Kim Jong-Il’s standing in the international community, the money that will undoubtedly be sent to Kim and his buddies will end up in their own pockets, they will continue to oppress their own people because they can do so financially, they are no longer isolated (from the international community) and they once again succeeded in blackmailing America.

A successful trip, then? Not really, no.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Doomed
    August 5th, 2009 at 16:16
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Talking and getting results is always a good thing.

    The question in cases such as these are what did the USA have to give up in return. We all know that NK did not give these two away for nothing. There is or was a price to be paid…we will never know the price but I sure it was not cheap.

  2. Interested
    August 10th, 2009 at 08:40
    Reply | Quote | #3

    and details that emerge now show it was no magical network of contacts, no act of great Statesmanship, no foreign policy smarts.

    They were 2 reporters who went where they shouldn’t have been and were held as pawns in comfortable surroundings until the Great OB said okay and Clinton went on over.

    Indeed, her worst complaint was that her rice tasted like ‘rocks’

    Indeed, from the whole tawdry affair only one clear winner has emerged – an exuberant Bill Clinton – even if, according to an insider, ‘the joke in the White House was that the girls were safer in North Korea than on the plane going home with Bill’.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.