Kathreb

Friday, March 04, 2005

The LA Times has run a few articles on North Korea over the last few days. Getting a lot of comment is one by Barbara Demick relating an interview with a North Korean assigned to help his country attract foreign investment. The other one getting some blog space is also by Ms. Demick and outlines what the North Koreans see as being the conditions necessary for proceeding with negotiations. Hugh Hewitt is strongly against these articles and doesn’t hold back:

The Times' "media relations" director, David Garcia, sent my producer an e-mail yesterday explaining that the Times' "has published as well the perspectives on the history, the living conditions, the point of view of the U.S. government and general Western view of North Korea." We can only conclude that today's piece is another from the North Koreans' "point of view," with a little "America" point of view added on at the end.

The trouble is, the "North Korean point of view" is really the "point of view" of a ruthless despot and deserves no more traction in a free press than Hitler's did in 1938. This is "moral equivalence" of the highest order, and a failure of imagination. Demick-Duranty evidently cannot find the time or the courage to report on the chilling conditions within the vast prison camp that is North Korea, but instead doubles down with a another article that will no doubt be well received in Pyongyang as an excellent example of "fair reporting."

In contrast to this view, it would seem to me that hearing the opinions and views straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth is great reporting. The role of reporters is to inform us of all the hues, opinions and angles to a story. Any reporting would be lapse in the extreme if they simply provided one standpoint (in this case the US point of view). Perhaps if more of Hitler’s words and opinions had been published in Western papers there might have been fewer people willing to try and appease him and more who would have recognized the words of a nutcase. That of course is pure supposition and not intended to generate discussion - maybe he would've gotten a wider fan base - the point is you never know and journalists shouldn't try and guess.

If journalists and reporters are there to inform us then it is their responsibility to tell us what each stakeholder is saying about an issue of interest and leave judgment to the reader. They should not make decisions about who is credible and who is not and they shoud certainly not print only those people they like or believe. They should, as a matter of necessity, disclose as much information as possible about who the person is, their role and background, and why they think their opinion is valid to read about. In this case, learning that the man is a North Korea assigned by the government tells us plenty about where he is coming from.

Hugh also takes offense at an article that questions the credibility of political prisoners claimng that chemical weapons were used against them. Defectors and refugees are notoriously not credible. David Hawk who oversaw publication of "The Hidden Gulag" noted this when he spoke last year at Stanford. Refugees often are looking for support and asylum in the country they flee to so it makes sense for them to embellish the hardship and danger they have faced. They may be looking for fifteen minutes of fame or they may hold a personal grudge against the establishment or there may be reasons for them to make up stories which we can't guess at. The Wapo also noted recently a sob-story they had published about an Iraqi woman which turned out to be mostly bogus.

The Iraqi case emphasises that stories from all sources need to understood in context and taken as hearsay (which is what it usually is). It is good sense to check facts, gain as many opinions as possible and take every story with a grain of salt. Just because someone says they have suffered horribly doesn't mean they are an honest broker. There is strong evidence to back up the stories of suffering we hear is going on in Korea but that doesn't mean that everyone with a story is telling the truth.

Also at issue is the fact that the article fails to talk about the human rights atrocities going on in North Korea. However, clearly the subject of the regime's atrocities is not the topic of the "Rancor" article, the nuclear issue is. It seems unjustified to suggest that all articles on North Korea should focus on human rights. Surely there is plenty of opportunity to write on different topics from different perspectives.

I think the story by Ms. Demick was great. The North Korean’s opinions seemed to fit mostly with what the US government has been saying about them. They story gives a perspective of how the North Koreans (who support the regime) see their position in this whole situation and how they expect things might progress. The North Korean’s opinion is obviously bias but his story in the context of what we have read on how US, Japan and South Korea see things, is very informative. Its also great that they are talking to US reporters and maybe being asked some tough questions that might provoke them to think more about what they believe and to ask the reporter for more information about what the US/others think of them.

Permalink Post a Comment

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Be Mature or Else I Won't Talk to You - So there!

On February 10th it was reported that the North Koreans had came out blazing saying that they not only possessed nuclear weapons but they were also suspending for an "indefinite period" the six-party talks. And then on February 21st headlines informed us that the North were now saying that they will return to the talks if conditions are "mature." And since nobody had any idea what the hell that meant responses generally came via a reiteration of a desire to persevere with the thus far result-less talks.

The latest (and best so far) came in today’s papers, which informed us that North Korea "called on the US to "rebuild the groundwork" for multilateral talks on its nuclear weapons programmes by apologising for labelling it an "outpost of tyranny". This comes on the heels of their famous statement that they "will go to the talks any time if the US takes a trustworthy sincere attitude and moves to provide conditions and justification for the resumption of the six-party talks".

So we may conclude that after claiming to have nukes, unilaterally suspending talks, threatening to scupper their missile moratorium (among their regular antics of threatening a 'sea of fire' and more) it is the US by comparison who lacks sincerity, trustworthiness and maturity. The absurdity of this situation is staggering.

Permalink Post a Comment

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Surprise, Surprise

Prolific as ever Nicholas Eberstadt has released his latest jingoistic prose concerning North Korea via an opinion piece in the Washington Post ? “What Surprise?” And indeed his first point that the North’s declaration of possessing a nuclear arsenal was, among those following the issue, no big shakes and certainly no surprise. This concurs with my earlier post noting that the biggest surprise was that people were surprised. However, as usual, there are more points over which I disagree with Mr. Eberstadt than those I agree with and this article offers no exception.

The article argues that nuclear development on the part of the North fits is in accordance with three intertwined ambitions. That is, their state of war mentality; their desire to eventually rid the peninsula of US troops (and unite it under their own regime); and to achieve their ideological vision of juche. He further argues that achieving these ends cannot be done by possessing conventional capabilities and that the threat of being able to strike the US with a nuke will fill the gap. The goal of developing long-range strike capability is given as the rationale behind North Korea’s nuclear development. If that is the case, the North Korean leaders are a bunch of dolts (something I believe to be true).

Having nuclear weapons gives the North no advantage over the US. It does not improve their chances of winning the on-going conflict with South Korea. The North does not need nukes to hit the American enemy, all they need do is fire across the DMZ. Moreover, if the aim is to prompt the US to withdraw troops it is likely to do the opposite. Even if US troops withdrew, the North does not need nuclear weapons or long range ballistic missiles to be able to strike the US or even Japan to ensure that US would be engaged in any renewal of hostilities ? that is a given. Korea is not Taiwan, there is no ambiguity about US involvement. For North Korea conventional weapons are sufficient deterrent because of the damage that can so easily be afflicted on Seoul.

The other idea is that nuclear weapons will drive a wedge in US-South Korea relations. Eberstadt argues that diminished credibility of US involvement in an renewed outbreak of the Korean War would upset South Korea. I’m sure it would. However, it is difficult to see how a heightened threat from the North against the South would reduce the likelihood of US resolve to maintain a commitment they have proved in blood and sustained for over fifty years with the support of the UN. If anything, in the era of pre-emptive war, the increased threat from the North only serves to strengthen the resolve of US to jump in if South Korea is attacked.

The underlying message of the article seems to be that US should be more belligerent against the North, show resolve and forget about trying to make a deal and save face with the North. I also think that trying to cut a deal is all but pointless but rather than being more belligerent I believe indifference would serve the US better. The final sentence of the article states that, “For America and its allies, however, the costs and dangers of failure are higher?incalculably higher.” This statement is profoundly lacking in explanation. The nuclear weapons are presumably for deterrence and not first strike, and the North has no chance of winning in either a conventional or nuclear war. So how is it that the costs are higher to the US to let the North have their useless deterrent? Before the nuclear weapons came on the scene the US wasn’t planning to attack anyway.

On the Topic of Neocons
The Financial Times has a piece on Wolfowitz's chances of landing the top job at The World Bank. I would consider such an eventuality to be a decidedly unfortunate as I perceive his skills lie in fields other than development and poverty alleviation.

Access to Official Records on Korea
This exciting development on the release of Korean archives regarding normalisation of ties with Japan will hopefully lead to new insights into this period. Hopefully the information will generate some discussion that reaches the public either through newspaper, academia, books, etc.

Permalink Post a Comment

Home