Skip to comments.Bush-Kerry debate: Both wrong on N Korea
Posted on 10/04/2004 6:55:29 PM PDT by joey703
Bush-Kerry debate: Both wrong on N Korea By Ralph A Cossa
(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)
Regardless of whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you are concerned about events on the Korean Peninsula, you had to come away from the first presidential debate feeling quite distressed. Neither US President George W Bush nor Senator John Kerry had his facts straight and, collectively, they managed to significantly reduce the already slim chance that there would be any near-term progress in the currently stalled six-party talks process.
In response to the question as to whether he supported bilateral or six-party talks with Pyongyang, Kerry rightfully stated "both", but you had to go over the transcripts several times to hear it, since he said it before moderator Jim Lehrer had finished his question. Senator Kerry then proceeded to talk exclusively about the need for direct dialogue with North Korea, without once mentioning that - as clearly stated in his official pronouncements - this bilateral dialogue should occur within the context of the six-party talks, not as a separate initiative.
What's worse, the best that he could say in response to the president's repeated assertion that bilateral talks would drive the Chinese away from the table was that "Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done ... we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China because China has an interest in the outcome too." Neither one seemed to know that Beijing - like Seoul, Moscow, and even Tokyo - have long encouraged Washington to deal directly with Pyongyang and that, at the last round of talks (in late June), such a side discussion actually occurred between the US and North Korea, much to China's (and everyone else's) delight.
By repeatedly pledging that his administration would not discuss the problem one-on-one with the North because "it's precisely what Kim Jong-il wants", the president has once again undercut the credibility of his own negotiators while seemingly putting his personal disdain for North Korea's leader ahead of the pursuit of America's national security interests. To paraphrase Kerry, just because Kim Jong-il wants us to do it doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. The key question, avoided by the president and barely touched upon by Kerry, is "would direct dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang, within the context of the six-party talks, enhance or detract from the accomplishment of our objective (the complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons program - which neither candidate chose to mention)?"
Before the debate, it seemed that the Bush administration's answer to this question was a cautious "yes". Has the president "flip-flopped"? If there were any South Koreans left who were still prepared to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt when it proclaims that it is willing to solve the problem diplomatically and is not intent on regime change, they must be shaking their heads wondering, "Where do we go from here?" The Republic of Korea government is also wondering why President Bush (once again) neglected to mention South Korea's contribution to the war in Iraq - the third largest foreign troop presence after the US and UK (unless you count the thousands of al-Qaeda "troops" that have flocked to Iraq since the US invasion).
President Bush was quick to "correct" Senator Kerry that the problem with North Korea today is uranium enrichment, not plutonium. The real problem, of course, is both. Yes, it was the discovery of North Korea's clandestine uranium enrichment program that prompted the current crisis in October of 2002. However, while the Bush administration has been busy fighting with itself over how best to proceed with this crisis - with hardliners consistently attempting to undermine various diplomatic approaches - the North Koreans have thrown out inspectors, reprocessed 8,000 spent fuel rods, and now claim to have "weaponized" the extracted plutonium; actions that Senator Kerry alluded to once in passing but did not seem prepared to focus on, despite his stated belief that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat facing the United States today. This was one of the few points on which the two candidates agreed (although President Bush rightfully added that it was not proliferation per se but the fear that such weapons would fall into the hands of terrorists that constituted the real danger).
If the situation on the Korean Peninsula is a serious one - and both candidates seem to agree that it is - and if nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat that America faces in the future - another common point of agreement - then you would think that President Bush and Senator Kerry could at least get their facts straight and understand their own stated positions before entering into an internationally televised debate. They clearly had their positions on Iraq memorized, and found opportunities to repeat them continuously, regardless of the questions being asked.
Perhaps before their next debate they could acquaint themselves with the issues and be prepared to discuss events outside Iraq that also constitute a threat to America's national security interests.
It would be nice if we got the USS PUEBLO back while we're at it....
If there were any South Koreans left who were still prepared to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt when it proclaims that it is willing to solve the problem diplomatically and is not intent on regime change, they must be shaking their heads wondering, "Where do we go from here?"
The subtext appears to me (and I could be wrong since it appears to me that the author is quite coy about his own suggestion) is that we should solve this "diplomatically" -- newspeak for "appease Kim" -- not via "regime change" -- newspeak for "not appease Kim."
In conjunction with other phrases such as "Kerry is right" seem to me indicate that this is just another appeaser of the Clinton/Kerry/Carter crowd.
Don't worry. Someday we will board that old US vessel where it is currently berthed on a river in North Korea.... this will be when the new Korean government has taken place in Pyongyang, moving forward to unite with the victorious South.
John Kerry is not a "president." George W. Bush is the President.
Now that that's straightened out:
Neither one seemed to know that Beijing - like Seoul, Moscow, and even Tokyo - have long encouraged Washington to deal directly with Pyongyang and that, at the last round of talks (in late June), such a side discussion actually occurred between the US and North Korea, much to China's (and everyone else's) delight.
Bulltwaddle. Bush said multilaterial talks were in the best interest of our country. It prevents N. Korea from permanently walking away from the table, since Kim Jong seriously Ill cannot afford to decisively anger China and Russia, and in his little toady mind, he is (or should be) afraid of a militarized Japan (South Korea is just window dressing, since they don't have much to bring to the table). Would China, Japan, Russia and S. Korea prefer we handle it with bribes and shoulder the entire responsibility of preventing N. Korea from using nukes? Sure -- such is the self-serving nature of every nation (unless you wear John Kerry's fuzzy glasses). As long as North Korea is not allowed to triangulate, and we're not willing to give away the store in return for empty promises , as was the case in the Clinton administration, a "side discussion" is not an earth-shaking event, nor was mentioning it even pertinent to the debate.
You're quite wrong. I am an American residing in Korea at the moment, and ever since I arrived here three years ago I noticed how big of an issue it really is.
but lacking any sort of rationality or real significance
Lacking rationality or real significance? If you are a concerned American then you should be aware of what is going on in that area of the world, which by the way is the number one proliferation danger in the world. To top it off, when both of the presidential candidates have key facts wrong it does bother me...
Clinton/Kerry appeaser, get your facts straight! William Perry I think is one of the most hawkish people on N. Korea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.