The New York Times (Almost) Discovers the NKHRA
Finally, some ink for the NKHRA in a major U.S. newspaper, even if it is buried inside a headline about Secretary Powell’s efforts to restart the futile six-way talks. All of this makes me speculate about how today’s Times crew would write the headline on the day the Soviet Union fell: Gorbachev Says Bush Stalling on Arms Control Summit
. . . or the day the Russians took Berlin: No Progress in German Cease-Fire Talks
As for the coverage itself, the usual mixed emotions apply. Nice they covered an important story; too bad they completely blew it:
Among other things, the north’s delaying tactics have deprived President Bush of the opportunity to boast that diplomacy was working with North Korea, even as hardliners in Congress and elsewhere have begun quietly floating the idea that the only thing that will work with the north is “regime change” – either by replacing or reforming the government led by President Kim Jong Il.
Hardliners, eh? In The Times‘s view, Churchill and Roosevelt were hardliners for insisting on a policy of unconditional surrender for Germany. Reagan was a hardliner for believing that the Soviet system would collapse under the weight of popular discontent. Question: how is North Korea different from Darfur? Answer: (1) North Korea’s human rights situation is arguably much worse; and (2) there aren’t any pictures of the North Korean gulag. Lest anyone misunderstand, Darfur absolutely deserves every bit of media attention it’s getting, and Kristof’s video report is balanced, interesting, and commendable. If I have a critical word to say about his report, it’s the astonishing degree to which his argument for the moral imperative of international pressure on the Sudan would be just as true if you substituted “Iraq” or “North Korea” for “Sudan.” Why so little interest, then, in the Iraqi mass graves or the North Korean gulags?
Is there a greater moral principle we learn from the difference in the way these stories have been covered? If there is, it’s not encouraging. The lesson here is that you can get away with anything if you follow a few simple rules:
1. Proclaim your hatred for the United States early and often.
2. See to it that there’s no video.
3. Exclude, imprison, or kill any journalist who will pursue the hard questions.
4. Let in a few visitors, but make sure they’re either complete toadies or woefully uninquisitive about the Potemkin villages.
5. If any refugees get out alive, keep them too scared to congregate in camps where journalists can interview them.
6. Always pay off at least one permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.
The article continues:
Earlier this month, a coalition of both conservatives and liberals in Congress passed a resolution calling on the United States to make human rights reform an element of any discussions with North Korea on its nuclear ambitions. In addition, the resolution calls on the United States not to grant any economic aid to the north – which Mr. Bush has hinted would be forthcoming in a final deal – without measurable progress on human rights.
The resolution, which Mr. Bush signed on Monday on the eve of Mr. Powell’s trip to the region, has also caught the attention of the media in Japan, China and South Korea – not to mention in North Korea, where it has been denounced along with the naval exercises as hostile in intent.
Would you suddenly vomit out your bowels if you were to say “North Korean Human Rights Act?” C’mon. Say it with me. There, that wasn’t so bad, was it? The rest of this is an implicit adoption of the Sunshine Policy–let’s not sabotage promising talks (and they will go on promising much and delivering nothing in perpetuity) by talking about unpleasantries.
Supporters of the resolution in Congress say that, although there is nothing explicit in it calling for the overthrow of the current government, they want such a change at least to be discussed.
Well, it’s nice that someone says we should be discussing it, given that we can pretty much eliminate every other option at this point. Invade? Could kill a million people. Limited strike? A temporary solution at best, and risks bringing artillery down on U.S. Army intallations near the DMZ. More talks? I don’t see how anyone could even take that option seriously anymore, given all of the overwhelming evidence of North Korea’s bad faith and secrecy. Certainly plenty of guys with lots of credentials think they’d do better than the last round of guys with lots of credentials. What do all of them have in common? A superior grasp of fine detail and nuance, and no capacity whatsoever to assemble those details into a coherent bigger picture or a logical course of action.
The mention of “supporters of the resolution” is also interesting. Funny thing is, I have yet to hear from any member of Congress who isn’t a “supporter.” There are enthusiastic supporters, willing supporters, tacit supporters, and supporters by default, who made the decision to stand aside rather than opposing the NKHRA. Not one member went on the record to oppose it, or even made such a statement in the media, to my knowledge. No mention of that in this article, of course.
The resolution did not have the enthusiastic backing of those in the Bush Administration who are trying to push for negotiations with the north, and Secretary Powell has been careful not to say that he would definitely make human rights changes a part of negotiations with the Pyongyang government.
There has been a debate over how much influence the executive and legislative branches of Congress each have over foreign policy for many years. My own take is that Powell has the constitutional authority to negotiate whatever he wants and the President approves, but he shouldn’t expect Congress to appropriate the funding for any Dane Geld.
Contrast this with the WaPo’s story about Powell’s trip and his recent statements about North Korea. The Times imagines Powell as the lone voice of reason in the Bush revival tent, but according to the Post, he’s shifted mightily toward the hard-line view in his most recent statements about North Korea, and might even have issued a veiled threat:
Asked Sunday about Cheney’s statement [that North Korea could ‘peddle nuclear technology to terrorist groups’ and start an arms race in Asia], Powell said: ‘We are not out of time. . . . We are all pressing hard, there is a sense of urgency. But President Bush has made it clear that he intends to use diplomacy and political activity, working with our friends and neighbors in a multilateral way, to solve this problem.’
There is urgency, but there is still time. Translation: if Bush is reelected, you people are screwed.
Yet, in an interview later with Japanese journalists, Powell harshly criticized North Korea, calling it a “terrorist state” for abducting Japanese citizens and saying it “shows a disrespect for human rights.”
Some call truth the first casualty of war; it’s at least equally true that truth is very lucky indeed to outlive diplomacy.
UPDATE: CNN is (almost) on the case, too:
North Korea says U.S. hostile intent also was reflected in a human rights law that Bush signed last week.
The law urges North Korea to allow freedom of speech and religion and calls for the appointment by the president of a human rights monitor for North Korea.
In the absence of a reduction in rights abuses, the law would forbid U.S. assistance to North Korea except for humanitarian purposes.
The article calls for editing by an editor acting as a style and grammar monitor. It also gets the facts wrong. There was never any question of the United States giving North Korea any aid but humanitarian aid, and Section 202(a)(2) of the NKHRA sets conditions (admittedly, using non-mandatory language) to insure that it goes to those who need it:
It is the sense of Congress that . . . significant increases above current levels of United States support [those levels are fairly modest at present-js] for humanitarian assistance provided inside North Korea should be conditioned upon substantial improvements in transparency, monitoring, and access to vulnerable populations inside North Korea . . . .
The article is still worth a look, however, because it covers the U.S. naval exercises that are about to start in the region, and the Dear Leader’s displeasure with them.