After testimony from government and NGO witnesses, Kerry observed, ‘Based on [widely differing testimonials], I get the sense that we are misinterpreting what our interests are, vis-à-vis [North Korea] and how they view us. And if we are, how useful are six party talks?’ Kerry remains alone among US policy leaders in questioning official descriptions of US interests on Korea.
Those interests remain the subject of profound confusion among government officials, policy specialists and the media. In public debate in the US, the goals of policy are generally described as denuclearisation, containment or regime change. Governments profess to be working toward denuclearisation while having internally decided it to be too tough and substitute for it containment, which relies on far less diplomacy and overall effort. The US interest in protecting or advancing the human rights of the North Korean public is loudly proclaimed, particularly by elected officials, but policy inputs are not designed to make any difference in this area. Meanwhile the policy of engagement begun in earnest by the US in 1994 – and given a critical boost by South Korea in 1998 – is criticized as having been ‘unconditional’ and having no better impact on North Koreans or on regional security than the current containment approach, neither of which is supported by the record.
Read Full Article »