There Is Such a Thing as ‘Good’ Engagement

If you’re reading this, you’re bearing with me despite the light blogging of late.  Thank you.  I make a habit of not talking about my work here, but suffice to say that it carries significant responsibilities that sometimes leave no time and energy for other things.  At times like these, when there is very little time left over, I owe that time to my family.  Thank you again for your understanding,  for continuing to stop by, and for your e-mails. 

Wall Street Journal drama critic Terry Teachout asks why the New York Philharmonic should serenade Kim Jong Il.  I hope, in accordance with his usual practice, he’ll skip the performance to which the famous orchestra is said to be giving “serious consideration.”  Regular readers know that I yield very little to anyone on the Bolton Rigidity Scale; I see no resolution to North Korea’s proliferation, military, or humanitarian threats as long as Kim Jong Il remains in power, and I see no way to end that threat without some  bloodshed (though I’ve always felt that North Koreans must  be the ones who remove him, with inspiration and material assistance from us).  Anyone who still believes in the non-violent overthrow of Kim Jong Il — as some conscientious people still do — need only look at the example of Burma.  In societies such as these,  all power comes from the barrel of a gun, and when  no moral force or suasion can prevent soldiers from obeying orders to fire on the crowds, more  earthly means are needed to force tyrants from their palaces.  At least, not until a different view of the world takes hold with sufficient strength that it can be expressed openly and discussed with others.

So clearly, the New York Philharmonic isn’t going to change North Korea much for the better, but many more exchanges like this could change it significantly.  Recently, I disappointed Professor Lankov by denying him much of  a debate on regime change.  We simply agreed on too much in the end.  Like Lankov, I believe that the cultural penetration of North Korea — in those rare instances when it’s permitted to reach the people — can sow doubts, often in unexpected, subtle ways.  I am still just naive enough to believe that if the orchestra’s music moves the souls of some in the audience, that alone will cogently refute crude state  propaganda  which holds that all Americans are  soulless big-nosed baby-killers.  The audience will certainly be composed exclusively of members of the elite, so the reaction will be impossible to measure.  This will be an audience with marginally more prior exposure to the outside world, but much less freedom to show any reaction whatsoever. 

On the other side of the ledger, what good can this concert do for Kim Jong Il?  Certainly it can’t confer any political or moral legitimacy that Madeleine Albright and Christopher Hill haven’t already.  The musicians will probably have to take the obligatory tour of juche monuments, though I’m completely unafraid that this will set off a wave of juche enthusiasm in Manhattan except among the usual suspects.  The converse — an adverse  reaction to the eerie idolatry and control — seems more likely.  The musicians will certainly have to pay some inflated hotel rates and air fares, and there is a point at which that degree of financial support could change my mind about this, but  based on what I know now, I doubt that the concert will be a significant financial windfall for the regime. 

The result of this concert is likely to be minimal in either  direction, then.  In principle, however, this concert shows more characteristics of “good” engagement (ie., engagement with the North Korean people) than “bad” engagement (thinly disguised subsidies to Kim Jong Il’s worst  designs, from which the North Korean people are excluded).  The more we can reach the North Korean people through permissive and non-permissive means alike, the better.  The more glimpses the North Korean people can catch of a freer, happier, more prosperous world, the better to stimulate their curiosity, envy, and hope.   Recently, Kang Chol Hwan  addressed a  group where I was in attendance.  Kang said that his  break with the regime was predestined because he was one of those born with the freedom gene.  Not everyone has that gene, but as long as the endeavor does not do more harm than good, it is to our advantage to reach others whose freedom genes lie latent.

See also:

*   The Chinese have arrested North Korean dissident and escaped political prisoner Lee Sang-Hyuk.  This is something I wish I had more time to talk about, and my hope is that other bloggers will pick up on this story and run with it.

*   The Joongang Ilbo reports:   ” A senior Japanese official has warned the United States that relations will suffer if Washington removes North Korea from its list of terrorist states, amid stepped up efforts to end Pyongyang’s nuclear drive. Relations between Tokyo and Pyongyang remain tense in part because of the communist state’s kidnappings of Japanese civilians, an issue that arouses deep emotion in Japan.”  Set aside the question of whether Agreed Framework 2.0 will disarm North Korea; history will  decide that soon enough.  Was it worth the diplomatic price to alienate the Japanese people and government on an issue of enduring importance to them, for the sake of appeasing a South Korean government that lost popular support two years ago and a North Korean regime that lost it decades ago?

*   Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the six-party process.  I wasn’t able to attend, which is regrettable, because some of the recent  writings by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen had suggested that Republicans would react with considerable skepticism in light of the Syria/Orchard story.  While I found no direct suport for that belief, I did find this indirect support, in the form of a skeptical view by Rep. Brad Sherman of California, a very realistic and plain-spoken Democrat who has become one of the Committee’s more influential voices. 

As we review testimony from today’s witness [Chris Hill], we need an explanation of how the Administration intends to monitor North Korea’s commitments.  This is all the more important given the IAEA’s marginal involvement in the verification process.  Will you have the resources, access and information needed to provide unequivocal confirmation that North Korea is meeting its obligations?  For instance, how does the Administration plan to remove or discard 8,000 fuel rods from the reactor?  [….]  

We also need to know how the outstanding issues such as uranium enrichment and North Korea’s existing nuclear arsenal will be handled. 

I would also like the witness to comment on the Administration’s plan to remove North Korea’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, to provide additional shipments of fuel and other aid, and other commitments made on the U.S. side of the equation.

Views such as these mean that Congress may not appropriate funds for  aid or heavy fuel oil for North Korea  unless the White House explains exactly what we know about what happened in Syria in September.  Here is a link to Chris Hill’s opening statement.  I haven’t had time to read it carefully, but it does contain the howler that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 remains in effect.

That concludes the Korea updates.     

*   As predicted here,  we’ve levied much heavier sanctions against Iran.  I predict we’ll see more. 

*   Saddam is dead, his regime is gone, Al-Qaeda is eradicated from many of its strongholds of last year, is being run out of Baghdad, and has probably  forfeited its revolutionary mojo  in the greater Muslim world through its brutality.  So aren’t those things worth affirming and celebrating?  The cost has been great and will continue to be for some time, yes.  Iwo Jima’s surfurous rocks were not worth thousands of American lives, but this war isn’t about any piece of  real estate any more than World War Two was.  Though I believe it’s premature to predict that this will be the result, if we defeat Saddam and al-Qaeda in Iraq, won’t we be a safer nation for it?  My prediction is that our economy is headed downward, and although the downturn will be as much for cyclical reasons as any other,  next year’s election-year talking poing will be to blame that  downturn on Iraq. 

*   Tom Lantos is furious about Yahoo’s support for Chinese censorship and its disingenuous reponses to his committee, as he should be.