Chris Hill Resignation Watch
Jack and Wolmae point to a statement by Chris Hill that Obama’s people have not invited him to stick around. On balance, I agree they probably won’t, but I’m not sure I agree that this article answers the question. First, parse Hill’s words. When asked if Obama’s people asked him to stay, he said, “I haven’t talked to anybody about my future.” Even for Hill, that statement contains a lot of loopholes. Second, consider the credibility of the source. I’ll wait for something a little more definitive before I celebrate Hill’s departure. The more important question is whether Hill’s replacement would be just as bad as Hill. That’s almost certainly the case, but he/she will probably be terrible for slightly different reasons — probably more honest and earnest than Hill, but less conniving and more naive, I’d guess.
The choice of Hillary Clinton for State greatly complicates the question of who will run our Korea policy. Before Clinton’s selection, you could say that V.P.-Elect Biden’s people — after all, Biden is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — would have played a dominant role. The selection of Clinton opens up the candidacy of a lot of holdovers from her husband’s administration. And while Clinton herself is viewed as a moderate-to-hawkish choice, many of Clinton’s minions are significantly to the left of Biden’s. If, for example, Biden’s people end up dominating the NSC while Clinton’s dominate at Foggy Bottom, it could even presage the same kind of factional battles that paralyzed the Bush Administration’s policies for so many years.
Might Hillary not be too eager to do anything with NK considering that her Husband managed to accomplish little during his time in office. While Obama will set the policy, she will implement it her way.
Just wondering, who wouldn’t the North Koreans want to see Hill replaced by that also happen to be Clinton allies?
I think their dream candidate is Wendy Sherman.
The Washington Post strikes Chris Hill again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121803177.html
It’s proving to be a bad week for him. How do you like this quote from Michael Gerson’s column above:
Comparing human rights in the United States and North Korea is not national humility, it is a libel against our country and the trivialization of immense human suffering — a kind of moral blindness sometimes confused with diplomatic sophistication.
What about the position of ambassador on North Korea Human Rights?
When does that official position expire?
What does it say about Bush’s foreign policy that – if he so chose – Obama could do away with the position altogether and nobody would likely notice?
What will Obama do with the position? Chances are he won’t gamble his early foreign policy legacy by — striking hard at North Korea’s human rights record. So, why not have the democrat controlled Congress close the office down or do it himself if he can?
Who’d want the post after what they’ve seen the office quickly become?
I’m asking these as serious questions…
If you were a fairly connected player in North Korea human rights already, in some NGO or government post, why would you want to take over the ambassadorship?
I don’t think I would – but I don’t know how DC works. I think I’d rather continue to work from the outside – where I could lambaste the office for so utterly failing in its stated purpose.
???