From Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton
Published in Le Soleil
(Canada) on 9 August 2009
by René Beaudin (link to original)
(Canada) on 9 August 2009
by René Beaudin (link to original)
Translated from
by Louis Standish.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
Bill Clinton is not like other former presidents. Firstly, what he does is about Bill Clinton. Lastly, he is the husband of the Secretary of State of the United States, Hillary Clinton. His recent trip to North Korea, which led to the liberation (apparently without conditions) of two American journalists, had earlier been presented as a strict “private affair,” although it looks like a state affair. It is hard to imagine Bill Clinton going to Pyongyang without the consent of his wife. It must be a state matter.
Bill Clinton affirms to have promised nothing to Kim Jong-il, the “Dear Leader,” most notably concerning “direct dialogue” with the United States. That is probably the case, but is not without importance. Essential are appearances and his handling of the “spoiled school girl” comments from North Korean leaders about his wife in Thailand two weeks ago.
It is hard to imagine that the goals of a former American president, associating himself with an issue from which he was originally excluded, may be the same goals of the United States. The dialogue with North Korea is in the “spirit of the times.” This was the case under George W. Bush. This is even more so under Barack Obama.
Jimmy Carter, who is almost in a rivalry with Bill Clinton to keep the title of best living ex-president of the United States, engaged himself in a similar maneuver in April of last year when he met with Syrian leaders in Damascus, Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Carter was without a doubt further from American power than Bill Clinton. He obtained nothing immediately tangible or symbolic like the liberation of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, but he openly pleaded for a dialogue with Syria and Iran in order to get out of the Iraqi quagmire, even though Tehran is still officially designated as a pillar of the “Axis of Evil” and Damascus is designated a “terrorist state.”
Jimmy Carter did not reinvent the wheel, but his message was also in the “spirit of the times.” Two years earlier, a committee from Congress co-chaired by former Secretary James Baker, argued in vain for the state to use reason. The Bush administration was, however, nearing its end. Barack Obama, to swing the American Democratic primary, made the recommendations from the Baker Commission his own, criticizing Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq War in 2003. Today, normalization with Damascus is in progress.
Bill Clinton did not reinvent the wheel either. He has stayed quiet on “direct dialogue.” But the fact that his mission had nothing to do with the Six-Party talks, which Washington wants to revolve around the debate of a nuclear North Korea, signals that his approach is a plea for a certain dialogue.
“Direct dialogue” with North Korea has been in “the spirit of the times” ever since the first North Korean nuclear tests in 2006. If the proliferation of nuclear arms is the cancer that world leaders say it is, whether in the Middle East with Iran or in East Asia with North Korea, the issues must be discussed with key stakeholders.
North Korea has maybe lost their political usefulness. That is possible. But politically it is possible that they are only grandstanding.
Bill Clinton affirms to have promised nothing to Kim Jong-il, the “Dear Leader,” most notably concerning “direct dialogue” with the United States. That is probably the case, but is not without importance. Essential are appearances and his handling of the “spoiled school girl” comments from North Korean leaders about his wife in Thailand two weeks ago.
It is hard to imagine that the goals of a former American president, associating himself with an issue from which he was originally excluded, may be the same goals of the United States. The dialogue with North Korea is in the “spirit of the times.” This was the case under George W. Bush. This is even more so under Barack Obama.
Jimmy Carter, who is almost in a rivalry with Bill Clinton to keep the title of best living ex-president of the United States, engaged himself in a similar maneuver in April of last year when he met with Syrian leaders in Damascus, Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Carter was without a doubt further from American power than Bill Clinton. He obtained nothing immediately tangible or symbolic like the liberation of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, but he openly pleaded for a dialogue with Syria and Iran in order to get out of the Iraqi quagmire, even though Tehran is still officially designated as a pillar of the “Axis of Evil” and Damascus is designated a “terrorist state.”
Jimmy Carter did not reinvent the wheel, but his message was also in the “spirit of the times.” Two years earlier, a committee from Congress co-chaired by former Secretary James Baker, argued in vain for the state to use reason. The Bush administration was, however, nearing its end. Barack Obama, to swing the American Democratic primary, made the recommendations from the Baker Commission his own, criticizing Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq War in 2003. Today, normalization with Damascus is in progress.
Bill Clinton did not reinvent the wheel either. He has stayed quiet on “direct dialogue.” But the fact that his mission had nothing to do with the Six-Party talks, which Washington wants to revolve around the debate of a nuclear North Korea, signals that his approach is a plea for a certain dialogue.
“Direct dialogue” with North Korea has been in “the spirit of the times” ever since the first North Korean nuclear tests in 2006. If the proliferation of nuclear arms is the cancer that world leaders say it is, whether in the Middle East with Iran or in East Asia with North Korea, the issues must be discussed with key stakeholders.
North Korea has maybe lost their political usefulness. That is possible. But politically it is possible that they are only grandstanding.
Previous article![]( "Obama Shares His Mother’s Love")
