North Korea Watch – Update!
This just in – Former President and Sex Demi-God Bill Clinton has negotiated the release of 2 American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, held captive by North Korea .
BACKGROUND:
The ever reclusive and isolationist state that is North Korea has never been fond of press, well, the free press. Reporters without borders has ranked North Korea as the second worst state for free press in the world, just above Eritrea [1].
That’s not to say North Korea lacks an Media coverage. It has 12 newspapers, 4 television stations and about 40 radio stations (All controlled tightly by the state). The propaganda they spew though is horrible. They claim their dead leader, and eternal president, Kim Il-Sung, will rise from the dead. They also say that Kim Jong-Il can “control the weather with his magical powers”. Ooooooh! Yeah, anyone can control the weather [2].
Though their censorship system is flawed. VHS and South Korean shows on tape are smuggled in. Police officers who check homes are more than often bribed, despite the all out ban on foreign media. If you live on the border, then you can pick up South Korean or Chinese radio.
Also, the internet is restricted to tourist areas in North Korea (Who would want a holiday in North Korea? Oooh honey look! The police are oppressing someone!). Some of the government elite can get the internet, with, ironically, state approval. If your government elite you run the state. If Pung Hao in Media Offices says no, you fire him.
REPORTERS:
Despite the fact you can’t even use a camera in North Korea, reporters still jump over the border to get the inside scoop on the Juche nation. And then get caught and whine and want freedom. Any decent journalist knows North Korea = No go!. You may disagree with their regime, or want to know how the North Koreans really feel, but you’re best off staying in the relative safety of your blogosphere.
Laura Ling and Euna Lee went into North Korea fully knowing the consequences of their actions. They were caught and sentenced to 12 years in Labour camp.Immediately humanitarians and journalist unions jumped to condemn North Korea, same old, same old.
But were they really in north Korean territory? North Korea claim they trespassed into North Korean territory (North Korea also claimed a 53 year old tourist ran into a military centre and was shot for not heeding warning [3]), but other reports maintain they were operating on the Chinese border and were taken by aggressive guards.
The capture of 2 American journalist was a huge win for North Korea. They now had diplomatic leverage over the United States. They had to consider every option. They had to put the reporters, now officially prisoners, in a bad setting, e.g. Labour Camp. The worst they made it, the better their situation. What could they bargain for? Reduced economic sanctions? U.S. troops out of South Korea? Ultimately, they got nothing but a handful of threats.
RELEASE:
Many people are praising Clinton for this chivalrous saving of two American journalist from enemy territory. However, Clinton was a mere figurehead. Most of the negotiations occurred between the North Korean representative in the U.N. and the U.S. State department [4]. I quote the article in that “Clinton didn’t go to negotiate this, he went to reap the fruits of the negotiation”
News outlets are praising Clinton bravery, as a U.S. private citizen, to engage in these talks. People view it as a humanitarian act of selflessness. People then question why Hilary Clinton, or Joe Biden didn’t go. It’s simple. Clinton is the U.S., or moreover Hilarys, secret weapon. Clinton’s administration made talks with North Korea in 2000, followed by the rainy spell of the Bush Administration.
People need to remember the Obama administration is shrewd. They didn’t send a U.S. politician, as that would be begging. They used Clinton. The charismatic Clinton. I wouldn’t be surprised if he got Kim in bed. He’s apparently that good.
JUSTIFIED?:
One question I am pondering if it was justified. On one hand, North Korea , more than likely, took these reporters hostage as an oppurtunity. On the other hand, they knew full well the risks of working that near North Korea, to the point where they could stumble in.The real question is when it is and isn’t justified for the U.S. to intervene on the world stage.
These were U.S. citizens, so in a sense it was the U.S.’s duty to get them released. If a pilot lost control of his plane and landed in Pakistan, the U.S. would fish him out. If U.S. citizens on vacation in Mexico was taken by Crime lords, the U.S. would rescue them. Is there a difference?
Of course there is. The pilot was working for the U.S.. they obviously couldn’t abandon him. The people on vacation weren’t doing anything and were taken by criminals of Mexico. In this case, the reporters were taken by a government. A nation. This is where we enter murky waters. Should U.S. citizens be given protection and assistance by the state once they step outside U.S. territory?If so, how much?
In my opinion, the first one is an obvious yes. The State exists to aid it’s citizens. If it can’t aid them in most cases, it isn’t doing it’s job. To what extent? Well, they obviously shouldn’t invade a country to get two citizens. They should favour diplomacy and strong words and threats over guns and bombs. In the case of North Korea, they had a huge amount of pre-existing leverage, which was lucky. If it was Iran, the results would have been less favourable. The situation shows the diplomacy of the Democratic government. I don’t care to think of how Bush would have handled it.
Republican Robert Bolton claimed the U.S. was “close to negotiating with terrorists” and “Encouraging their bad behaviour” [5] . Was it? Everything considered, increasing economic sanctions would merely fuel the flames for this type of action. Furthermore, the situation was resolved peacefully and now the reporters are back without any American concessions. The North Koreans lost out, ultimatley.
I’m interested to hear responses to this. Please leave a comment giving your two cents on the matter.
Sources:
[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index
[2] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control#2008_Olympic_games
[3] = http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-07/12/content_6839889.htm
[4] = http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_journalists_held
[5] = http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/04/bolton-north-korea-journalists/
August 5, 2009 - 1:22 pm
“reporters are back without any American concessions”
Really? You mean sending over a past president to negotiate the release of two reporters isn’t a concession?
LOL not only did we partially legitamize the government that starves its citizens and has attempted multiple times to produce nuclear armorments but we also sent over our past president.
You are fooling yourself if you think the hostage situation was a “misunderstanding”. There are underlying reasons to every action.
Why do you think the Whitehouse vehemently denied that they asked Clinton to go?
August 5, 2009 - 2:12 pm
I did say it’s more than likely NK captured them in China and that Clinton was U.S.’s secret weapon. NK was recognized anyway. It’s on every map. Taiwan is a dodgy area.
August 5, 2009 - 2:13 pm
“You mean sending over a past president to negotiate the release of two reporters isn’t a concession?”
Clinton didn’t negotiate, the U.S. and NK did. Clinton simply collected them and and made a show of it.
August 5, 2009 - 2:23 pm
Which further impresses my point. Why should a past president have to collect two hostages who were already being released? Hmm..
North Korea =/= North Korea’s Government
You can recognize the physical location, and not recognize (give legitamecy to) the government.
August 5, 2009 - 2:40 pm
- Clinton was a strategic choice. It shows that Obama doesn’t necessarily recognize the North Korean government, and Clinton has a decent image with Kim Jong Il (He had Diplomatic relations with NK). Also, if Clinton makes a diplomatic faux pas, it doesn’t reflect on the U.S.
- And recognize what government? America has recognized the North Korean government in the 6 party talks and in the U.N. Just because they accept they’re in power doesn’t mean that they are patting them on the back.
August 5, 2009 - 7:23 pm
Engaging in 6 party talks with North Korea have only resulted in Kim Jong II faking to stop its nuclear program, giving over a huge report that really told us nothing, and eventually walking away from the table with millions of US dollars for food aid which it in turn embezzled for its own use instead of giving it to its citizens. It then tested nuclear missles which it is prohibited to have and then captures 2 US citizens on the chinese border, and what is our response?
Show them that it could be to their economic disadvantage to mess with us? No, we send over our past president to schmooze the leader. Which was a positive affirmation of their government and actions since it decided to not only begin its nuclear program again, but actually test nuclear weapons.
Did we make concessions, you bet we did.
August 6, 2009 - 6:04 am
Negotiating with North Korea didn’t give it a positive look. What was America suppose to do? Leave the girls their to rot? Then how positive would Americas image be?
You believe that if you don’t “think” a coutnries there, it will go away. It’s childish stuff, like saying “La, la la la North Korea doesn’t exist anymore la la la la. Oh, can you tell North Korea I’m not talking to him anymore”. North Korea will exist whether or not America recognizes it.
August 6, 2009 - 7:01 am
America should have put a complete trade embargo on the country and convinced its other allies to do the same. It should have sent over a no-name representative to collect the girls.
August 6, 2009 - 9:36 am
Putting more economic sanctions on would have just fuelled the flames.
August 6, 2009 - 10:23 am
You can’t fuel the flames if you dont haves no money to buy fuel and if you did no one would sell it to you.
August 6, 2009 - 12:17 pm
Or they could produce the fuel and light it with Anti-American sentiment.
August 6, 2009 - 8:45 pm
Appeasement worked great with Hitler.
August 7, 2009 - 4:48 am
This is different. If we let Kim Jong Il have th egirls, that would be appeasement. If we followed this route in WW2, We would have taken Austria away from Germany diplomatically.
August 7, 2009 - 8:54 am
“If we let Kim Jong Il have th egirls, that would be appeasement”
You’re right, first two news reporters, then China, then the world.
I’m sure Kim really valued the girls far above the billions of dollars we could have cost him in trade embargoes.
August 7, 2009 - 11:21 am
Germany takes the Sudenland. France and the UK did nothing. Hitler continues to take what he wants unchallenged. If the French or British, at any point, stopped him then WW2 wouldn’t have broken out. Ultimately, if we let Kim Jong Il get away with this, he would have gone on and on.
August 7, 2009 - 5:29 pm
“if we let Kim Jong Il get away with this”
We essentially did. He wrongfully captured 2 US citizens who had done nothing wrong, and held them hostage for months. We responded by sending over a past president to practice diplomacy.
August 8, 2009 - 7:45 am
We sent over Clinton because he is a private citizen. The U.S. negotiated behind the scenes.
Your proposal is 1) Get the girls free and 2) Put more economic sanctions on NK
Which is basically wrong.
August 8, 2009 - 1:36 pm
Sending Clinton allowed both sides to save face. There were apparently silent negotiations going on, which reached a compromise. Sending Clinton just allowed the Obama Administration to claim they did not negotiate over this issue, and Jung Il could claim that he did not cave to pressure from the U.S.
August 8, 2009 - 3:11 pm
No, I think you are misinterpeting what my proposal is.
Put heavy economic sanctions on NK until: they release both girls, fully halt their nuclear program, disclose all details including who they’ve sold to (undoubtedly syria). Once the following is complete i’m all for lifting economic sanctions.
What actually happened is that the Obama administration decided to act like it was just a simple misunderstanding, and we made the concession of sending over a past president. It wasn’t a misunderstanding, the Obama administration knows that.
I see what you are saying about saving face JBlake. However I really doubt the Obama administration saved any face, at least with his own people. We know he negotiated, we know he made concessions.
August 8, 2009 - 3:12 pm
Furthermore you’re a fool if you believe that anyone actually views Clinton as a “private” citizen. Seriously.
August 8, 2009 - 3:14 pm
You honestly think the North Koreans would give two girls and a list of their allies to the United states for more economic sanctions. Lol.
North Korea would have held those girls at gunpoint and said they’ll kill them if the United States doesn’t lift the economic sanctions.
August 8, 2009 - 4:46 pm
LOL I think you are underestimating the power of heavy economic sanctions.
Billions of dollars in trade revenue > 2 girls
If North Korea held two innocent civilians at gunpoint do you really think only the US would be concerned?
August 8, 2009 - 6:18 pm
askbob, you are making the mistake of assuming all U.S. citizens and people in the rest of the world are as informed as you or I. To them, he certainly did save face. I know many intelligent people around here who (until I correct them) believe that Clinton is responsible for their release.
August 8, 2009 - 11:28 pm
You are correct JBlake, the proles (1984 reference) do think it was clinton. Thankfully there is enough well informed people in this country still on both sides of the fence to inform them.
August 8, 2009 - 11:50 pm
I feel bad that I must give you some more bad news, askbob. I wish you were right, but I fear you are wrong. There are plenty of informed people, sure. Unfortunately they tend to exist within their own pockets with likewise informed individuals and outside the reach of most of the uninformed.
August 9, 2009 - 2:31 am
Read this letter to the editor:
http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg
August 9, 2009 - 7:35 am
I lol’led at the person so stuck in the belief that the earth isn’t warming that she blames the Libs for magically raising the weather temperature.
August 9, 2009 - 9:36 am
*facepalm.jpg*