Chris Hill Slips Through; New Bills in Congress Would Roll Back His Unilateral Concessions

[Update:   I have the House bill, too.  Scroll down for the link.]

The AP is reporting that Christopher Hill is now confirmed as Ambassador to Iraq.  Having managed to inflict a slight flesh wound on Hill, we can at least claim to have alerted potential critics to some of the less desirable aspects of his character, which (I fear) will reveal themselves again in due course when he opens secret talks with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you, though I predict that eventually, some of those who voted for cloture on this debate will eventually have reason to call for Hill’s head.

I shudder at the damage Hill could do in Iraq, but as far as North Korea policy is concerned, at least he’s out of that picture.  On the other hand, Hill’s “legacy” — and of course, it’s Bush’s legacy, too — is a long series of concessions that we were assured would be strictly conditioned on North Korea meeting its disarmament obligations.  Here is what Bush said when he announced the relaxation of sanctions and North Korea’s removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism last June:

The six-party process has shed light on a number of issues of serious concern to the United States and the international community.  To end its isolation, North Korea must address these concerns.  It must dismantle all of its nuclear facilities, give up its separated plutonium, resolve outstanding questions on its highly enriched uranium and proliferation activities, and end these activities in a way that we can fully verify.

North Korea must also meet other obligations it has undertaken in the six-party talks.  The United States will never forget the abduction of Japanese citizens by the North Koreans.  We will continue to closely cooperate and coordinate with Japan and press North Korea to swiftly resolve the abduction issue.

This can be a moment of opportunity for North Korea.  If North Korea continues to make the right choices, it can repair its relationship with the international community ….  If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and our partners in the six-party talks will respond accordingly.  If they do not fully disclose and end their plutonium, their enrichment, and their proliferation efforts and activities, there will be further consequences.  [….]

[O]ur policy, and the statement today, makes it clear we will hold them to account for their promises.  And when they fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be eased.  If they don’t fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be placed on them.

Here is what Barack Obama said:

This is a step forward, and there will be many more steps to take in the days ahead. Critical questions remain unanswered. We still have not verified the accuracy of the North Korean declaration. We must confirm the full extent of North Korea’s past plutonium production. We must also confirm its uranium enrichment activities, and get answers to disturbing questions about its proliferation activities with other countries, including Syria. [….]

Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure North Korea to act. They should only be lifted based on North Korean performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we should move quickly to re-impose sanctions that have been waived, and consider new restrictions going forward.  [Barack Obama]

My suspicion then and now was that this was just disingenuous talk meant to soften opposition to misguided unilateral concessions, but it’s even more important to hold politicians to their insincere words than to their sincere ones.  And if the relaxation of sanctions was to be conditioned on North Korea keeping its promises, President Obama should now reimpose those sanctions as a consequence of North Korea breaking them, for holding two American journalists as hostages, for threatening to nuke its neighbors, and for flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions that banned its WMD programs.  Several bills are now percolating in Congress that would do just that:

– H.Res. 309, a non-binding resolution, calls on North Korea to stop threatening neighboring countries, meet its disarmament obligations, and comply with U.N. resolutions.  In other words, it’s an empty gesture, but it has some bipartisan support.

– H.R. 485 would codify sanctions against North Korea, mainly relating to arms sales and technology transfers.

– H.R. 1980 and S. 837, both introduced yesterday, are still too new for the GPO text to be published yet.  The House bill would “continue restrictions against and prohibit diplomatic recognition of the Government of North Korea,” and the Senate bill would “require that North Korea be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism [and] ensure that human rights is a prominent issue in negotiations between the United States and North Korea.”  These bills have teeth, and it’s probably no coincidence that neither has Democratic co-sponsorship.  Although I have not seen the House bill, my understanding is that both bills have similar provisions.  I do have a copy of the Senate bill, which you can read at the link below.

I now have both the House and Senate bills (my thanks to the friends who forwarded them).  Their provisions are indeed similar, and you can read them both below.  One of my own suggestions was to include language demanding the release of Euna Lee and Laura Ling, and I’m glad to see that language in both the House and Senate bills. 

You can read Curtis Melvin’s take here.

My take — I strongly doubt that the Democrats, who now enjoy one-party rule over our entire government, will ever let any bill that would reimpose sanctions get voted on.  Remember that the next time Democrats campaign on how tough and smart their brand of diplomacy is.  The reality of a Democratic-controlled government is unilateral concessions, provocations without consequences, and the promotion of people like Chris Hill — in short, a rudderless, masochistic, and ineffective foreign policy.  When it comes to the most dangerous rogue nations, all but a few Democrats (and too many Republicans) can’t think beyond appeasement, and no amount of hollow campaign rhetoric can erase that basic truth.  If the Democrats really have a smarter, tougher foreign policy to offer, then let President Obama act match his campaign rhetoric with action and support these bills.