An Interview with Donald Gregg for Frontline on PBS
Donald Gregg was the U.S. Ambassador to S. Korea during the Clinton Administration and described the 1994 Taepodong missile test by North Korea as “the most dangerous time” in U.S./N.Korea relations.
Back during the Carter administration, we had a more ‘open’ relationship with N.Korea and the diplomatic effort was to bring N.Korea into the international community of well-meaning states. Even then, though, President (for life) Kim Jong Il was duplicitious. President Carter’s Ambassador said to Il, “We’re worried about your nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, obviously it could be used to manufacture weapons as well as power”. Il’s spokesman essentially said, “We’ll shut it down if you’ll build two light-water reactors and give us enough oil to compensate for the power we’ll use to do this”. This was the framework for the agreement the U.S. and N.Korea, or DPRK entered into in the 70’s. The next point of contention came in 1998 when DPRK again tested a ballistic missile, this time firing it across the bow of neighboring nation Japan. This really shook Japan up, since Il condemned anything seen as pro-American. Kim Jong Il dispatched an ambassador to the United States, Jo Myong Rok and his statement, “We two countries do not harbor hostile relations toward each other. We will work toward the improvement of relations", seemed like a useful statement.
When asked why we have failed to learn our lesson talking to them seriously and cooperating where possible, Gregg states,” I think two reasons. I think that Pres. Bush as he acquired a worldview as he ran for office, came into office with very hostile feeling toward four or five world leaders: Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Yassir Arafat, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. He also had a very strong antipathy toward Clinton for some of the things Clinton had done while he was president, and for the fact that Clinton defeated his father in ’92. Colin Powell’s first statement on N. Korea was ‘we’re going to take up where the Clinton Administration left off’, but that statement did not stand. When Kim Dae Jung, DPRK's Ambassador to the U.N. pressed for an early meeting with newly sitting President Bush in Washington, Bush delayed the meeting, and a statement to the effect of “ I don’t trust Kim Jong Il, we’re going to have a policy review before we do anything”really put off the DPRK leadership. So there was just a real cutoff of the progress that had been made.”
This assertion is disturbing in several ways: That he didn’t like Clinton because he had defeated his father is silly, and I never bought into that one. That he had a pre-office negative opinions of those 5 leaders is far from outrageous. That we did not follow up on Powell/Gregg’s early work is most surely a mistake, but not to review policy when coming into office would be a mistake too. Gregg asserts that time passed and it ‘put off’ the DPRK, though, I cannot perceive this as our problem. Then Gregg says that since that agreement, Kim Jong Il thought we had “moved the goalpost”. I find that interesting to say the least.
Next post: Bush’s Doctrine and capitulation in the modern world of politics and diplomacy.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Back to Blogging/ American Foreign Policy: I'm a fan
It's been quite a while since I posted on this page, and I'm still inundated with day to day fodder, the scope of which can get me down at times. This is not one of those times, I'm happy to say. I have turned a corner and things sure look swell now, so I figured I'd post something.
One of the things I like to do is make notes on news that comes at me, so I'll remember my thoughts at that moment, and ,call me a sadist, but I cruise the liberal blogs and newspapers every so-often to keep abreast of the mindset and cause celeb' of my twisted counterparts.
One of the most left-leaning sites I've found is the Washington Post's Blog page, with several different writers. A story not long ago invoked some thoughts about our foreign policy with regards to North Korea, and since it's the WaPost, you know they are critical of President Bush and his policy record. I too, am critical of his foreign policy record, but unlike those rabid lefties, I do my own research and suffice to say, I know a thing or two about foreign policy, and what the United States expects from her international counterparts. Of course, it can be summed up in three words: "Our best interests".
With regards to North Korea and their nuclear ambitions, I have no problem with any state acquiring the ability to create power to live without having to pay an outside source. Just try living in the U.S. about now, and pay incredibly high power rates. My electric bill at the height of the summer A/C season was $480. Thats not as high as some, but trust me, it's way too much for this little house. If I could create my own power and kick my provider to the curb I would.
The problem is, we don't trust North Korea's leadership to leave their weapons systems undeveloped. Why should they? After all, as they say, what can they do when/if the U.S. attacks them? They don't have the Bomb! Never mind the fact that the U.S. has no interest, an opinion easily translated to our neighbors around the world, in invading North Korea or any other country. Having said that, if Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad were truly transparent and innocent in their nuclear ambitions, they would have nothing to fear. But the simple truth is, we, and our allies, and our un-declared allies fear rougue nations acquiring the ability to wage nuclear war. Already they wage cold war. Several conduct daily operations against us and our interests, and though the situation in Iraq is not where we wish it to be, our motives are sound. But it's become an almost impossible task, since the world's motives have become so murky.
North Korea's stance, in diplomatic circles, is one of need: they are broke. They are starving, yet they have a robust military and conventional weapons arsenal including submarines and missiles. They asked us, during former Secretary of State Madelaine Albright's visit under President Clinton for aid in feeding their poor. Inexplicably, we agreed to do this, and did not pressure them to come up to modern levels of public care. Somehow, our leaders then actually acted suprised and dismayed!
The U.S.'s stance is clear: Come correct with the people in your own borders, and we'll help. Stop spending so much on military hardware-there's no reason to fear an invasion from us- and we'll put our considerable resources towards giving you plentiful, cheap power.
Next post is my notes from a Frontline article I googled after reading a critical argument from a WaPost blogger about our NKorea, or DPRK foreign policy and why we won't talk to them.
One of the things I like to do is make notes on news that comes at me, so I'll remember my thoughts at that moment, and ,call me a sadist, but I cruise the liberal blogs and newspapers every so-often to keep abreast of the mindset and cause celeb' of my twisted counterparts.
One of the most left-leaning sites I've found is the Washington Post's Blog page, with several different writers. A story not long ago invoked some thoughts about our foreign policy with regards to North Korea, and since it's the WaPost, you know they are critical of President Bush and his policy record. I too, am critical of his foreign policy record, but unlike those rabid lefties, I do my own research and suffice to say, I know a thing or two about foreign policy, and what the United States expects from her international counterparts. Of course, it can be summed up in three words: "Our best interests".
With regards to North Korea and their nuclear ambitions, I have no problem with any state acquiring the ability to create power to live without having to pay an outside source. Just try living in the U.S. about now, and pay incredibly high power rates. My electric bill at the height of the summer A/C season was $480. Thats not as high as some, but trust me, it's way too much for this little house. If I could create my own power and kick my provider to the curb I would.
The problem is, we don't trust North Korea's leadership to leave their weapons systems undeveloped. Why should they? After all, as they say, what can they do when/if the U.S. attacks them? They don't have the Bomb! Never mind the fact that the U.S. has no interest, an opinion easily translated to our neighbors around the world, in invading North Korea or any other country. Having said that, if Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad were truly transparent and innocent in their nuclear ambitions, they would have nothing to fear. But the simple truth is, we, and our allies, and our un-declared allies fear rougue nations acquiring the ability to wage nuclear war. Already they wage cold war. Several conduct daily operations against us and our interests, and though the situation in Iraq is not where we wish it to be, our motives are sound. But it's become an almost impossible task, since the world's motives have become so murky.
North Korea's stance, in diplomatic circles, is one of need: they are broke. They are starving, yet they have a robust military and conventional weapons arsenal including submarines and missiles. They asked us, during former Secretary of State Madelaine Albright's visit under President Clinton for aid in feeding their poor. Inexplicably, we agreed to do this, and did not pressure them to come up to modern levels of public care. Somehow, our leaders then actually acted suprised and dismayed!
The U.S.'s stance is clear: Come correct with the people in your own borders, and we'll help. Stop spending so much on military hardware-there's no reason to fear an invasion from us- and we'll put our considerable resources towards giving you plentiful, cheap power.
Next post is my notes from a Frontline article I googled after reading a critical argument from a WaPost blogger about our NKorea, or DPRK foreign policy and why we won't talk to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)