By Brigitte L. Nacos
Who wouldn’t be touched by the images of joyful and relieved former hostages Euna Lee and Laura Ling, their families, friends, and colleagues? As far as the hostages and their loved ones were concerned, Bill Clinton’s humanitarian mission to North Korea was the right and only thing to do. After all, the imprisoned American reporters had conveyed in their phone calls home that the ransom demand by North Korean officials was the request that former president Bill Clinton were to visit Pyongyang. Thus, the deal was struck before Clinton touched down on North Korean soil: A special pardon by Dear Leader Kim Jong Il would free the two American reporters and allow Clinton to bring them back to America.
So, why isn’t there universal praise for Clinton’s successful trip that the White House characterized as a purely private initiative? Well, as one would expect the former U.S. president’s visit to the most isolated and oppressive country on earth was used as propaganda fodder by North Korea’s dictatorial leadership that promptly received the visitor as if he was still in office, when he touched down in Pyongyang. The images of Clinton's reception and those showing Kim Yong and Clinton side-by-side were publicized all over the world. In that, the North Korean leaders got precisely what they and the rulers of other rogue states are after: attention by big names and players on the world stage and the quasi-legitimacy that comes along with sitting at the same table as legitimate political actors.
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is very critical of Clinton’s trip and mission. He told Agence France Press, "I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that's encouraging their bad behavior.”
If Bill Clinton’s marching order from the White House was to solely focus on the release of the two reporters, few observers believe that North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and capabilities were not discussed during the meetings. After all, among the top level officials that greeted Clinton at the airport was North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator Kim Kye-gwan. At issue is whether to criticize or applaud efforts to once again try to convince North Korean leaders to abandon their nuclear weapons program.
Under the headline “Paying Kim’s Price,” The Wall Street Journal, “If it turns out that if a new nuclear negotiation really was begun during Mr. Clinton’s visit, it will also send the signal to North Korea that the worse its behavior, the more it stands to gain from the U.S. And it will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages.”
In his positive evaluation, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who was instrumental in winning the release of Americans held hostage in North Korea in the 1990s, considered this a win-win case. "It improves the atmospherics between the two countries," he said on CNN. "The relationship is really bad now. There is enormous tension and literally no dialogue."
To be sure, it is necessary to resort to diplomacy to ease bilateral and multilateral tensions—especially, when it involves states with nuclear programs. Just as presidents and their administrations negotiated with the leaders of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China during the deepest freeze of the Cold War, there is no reason why there should not be diplomatic contacts with North Korea or Iran.
But seeking and engaging in negotiations should not be the price for the release of hostages that should not have been taken and held in the first place.
In the past, when terrorists took hostages in order to force governments to give in to their demands, I have come down on the side of the national or collective interest of a nation rather than the individual or special interest of hostages and their families. As hard as it must be for leaders to make such decisions, giving in to hostage holders encourages copy-cat deeds and thus endangers others and perhaps a far larger number of people.
Recently, Somali pirates released a German-owned ship and its crew after a receiving a ransom of reportedly $700,000. The ship’s owners followed the lead of many of their colleagues who pay high ransom money to pirates who, in turn, take over other ships and ask for more ransom. Chancellor Angela Merkel was reportedly "happy and relieved" that the crew members of the freighter were freed. But unless pirates are denied ransom money, this racket will continue and get worse.
Applied to the powers that be in North Korea and Iran and elsewhere, they, too, should not be allowed to use hostages as bargaining chips, if only to improve their image at home and in their neighborhoods. I rarely agree with Bolton and the WSJ's editorial pages but in this case their criticism should be part of our policy deliberations.
Comments