Carter’s “DPRK Visit” Not Frightening
Recently someone wrote on his blog, “China Should Be Alarmed by U.S.-DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] Hostage Diplomacy,” which has attracted a lot of comments. The writer says, “On August 25, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter personally visited DPRK and discussed with DPRK the issue of releasing American hostages. This reminds people of former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s ice-breaking journey to DPRK in early August 2009. These two incidents are almost identical: Both are former U.S. presidents’ personal visits. … So this time, after one year, Carter’s visit to DPRK is to ‘institutionalize’ the secret dialog between the U.S. and DPRK, and there is only one purpose: to facilitate the direct dialog between the U.S. and DPRK and to get rid of China.” And, “apparently the issue of hostages is not the priority of Clinton and Carter; the real priority should still be [the] North Korean nuclear issue and [the] North Korea security issue.”
The writer believes, “The current relations among China, the U.S. and DPRK have many similarities with that among China, the Soviet Union and the U.S. in the 1960s and ‘70s. …This time, Carter’s and Clinton’s visits to DPRK are the repetition, and the evolution of the relations among the three countries is self-evident: China and the Soviet Union broke up; China slid to the U.S.’ side and formed a loose alliance with the U.S. in constraining the Soviet Union. If so, DPRK would gradually lose its trust in China. Instead, it would hate and fear China more and more. And it is possible that DPRK would slide to the U.S.’ side, just like China in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s: Due to increasing fear and a sense of crisis, China turned to the U.S. for security and support. Finally, the writer commented: “By that time, the friendship between China and DPRK would disappear. China would lose its influence on the Korean peninsula and leave a power vacuum to be filled by the U.S. It is conceivable that once the DPRK-U.S. relations are strategically more important than DPRK-China relations, it would be China rather than the U.S. that DPRK would fear most.” These comments have frightened a lot of people.
The blogger does have his reasons to make these speculations and predictions, and it is possible that the relationship among China, DPRK and the U.S. would be like what the writer has predicted. But former U.S. President Carter’s personal visit to DPRK on Aug. 25 and his discussing the issue of releasing U.S. hostages with DPRK may not be like what the writer has said. Of course, the blogger is reminding China and sounding the alarm out of good intentions. However, the fact is still the fact. It is necessary to avoid a false alarm or even improper reactions, which may hold things up. Therefore, immediately after I read the blog, I commented on it: “Judging from Carter’s personality and the situation when he visited DPRK several years before, it takes observation to see through the real intention in discussing the hostage issue with DPRK.”
That is based only on Carter’s personality and his visit to Iraq several years before. It is not necessary to feel frightened either, if looking at DPRK’s position in the U.S.’ diplomatic circle. So someone commented, “DPRK is at most a crazy fry to the U.S. But this fry seems to be able to disrupt the order in this area. … And he went on, “To the U.S., if China changes, so would DPRK. It’s not necessary to solve the single problem of DPRK at all. So DPRK cannot depend on its China card. … The U.S. would only make sure that DPRK is alive, but it’s unlikely that the U.S. would help DPRK to become another Asian tiger. There is no doubt that the U.S. focuses on China.” These words are pretty interesting on thorough consideration. At least it would not cause any misunderstanding or false alarm. The U.S. cannot tolerate DPRK, but the U.S. doesn’t have any economic interests there, so it doesn’t mind. The only thing the U.S. would mind is that DPRK does not make any trouble there. Of course the U.S. can tell that DPRK is waving the olive branch to it, but the U.S. doesn’t want to upset China because of DPRK. It’s not worthwhile to anger a guy who means a lot because of a guy who means little, and the U.S. knows it clearly! But the U.S. cannot ignore DPRK completely in the case that this fry would lose its mind. It can be seen that today’s DPRK is by no means the China in the triangle relationship among China, the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Now let’s take a look at some other leads. Some media pointed out that Carter’s visit to DPRK was on Kim Jong-il’s invitation. It is DPRK seeking for a diplomatic breakthrough to fulfill its goal to become a “big power” by 2012. But some other media said, “Carter may have imposed his own view on the U.S.’ policy. Carter’s view may be opposite to the U.S.’ policy to keep DPRK to its promise to give up its nuclear plan. Carter’s visit may weaken the ongoing efforts the U.S. is making to pressure DPRK to give up its nuclear plan and to observe the UN’s resolution and international law. Mr. Carter has made an unharmonious noise, and isn’t it a backfire? It is really like his visit to Iraq. To the U.S., Carter’s visit is defined as “pure humanitarian spirit.” Facing Kim’s regime, Carter’s visit has provided a chance to save face. Former U.S. President and Nobel Prize winner Carter has visited DPRK, and it surely has added glory to Kim, both father and son.
Of course, it is possible that Carter’s visit to DPRK this time may be “hostage diplomacy,” and we should be alarmed. But still, “it takes observation to see through the real intention in discussing the hostage issue with DPRK.” And one thing is certain: There is no need to feel too alarmed, in order to avoid getting political hypochondria.
The writer believes, “The current relations among China, the U.S. and DPRK have many similarities with that among China, the Soviet Union and the U.S. in the 1960s and ‘70s. …This time, Carter’s and Clinton’s visits to DPRK are the repetition, and the evolution of the relations among the three countries is self-evident: China and the Soviet Union broke up; China slid to the U.S.’ side and formed a loose alliance with the U.S. in constraining the Soviet Union. If so, DPRK would gradually lose its trust in China. Instead, it would hate and fear China more and more. And it is possible that DPRK would slide to the U.S.’ side, just like China in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s: Due to increasing fear and a sense of crisis, China turned to the U.S. for security and support. Finally, the writer commented: “By that time, the friendship between China and DPRK would disappear. China would lose its influence on the Korean peninsula and leave a power vacuum to be filled by the U.S. It is conceivable that once the DPRK-U.S. relations are strategically more important than DPRK-China relations, it would be China rather than the U.S. that DPRK would fear most.” These comments have frightened a lot of people.
The blogger does have his reasons to make these speculations and predictions, and it is possible that the relationship among China, DPRK and the U.S. would be like what the writer has predicted. But former U.S. President Carter’s personal visit to DPRK on Aug. 25 and his discussing the issue of releasing U.S. hostages with DPRK may not be like what the writer has said. Of course, the blogger is reminding China and sounding the alarm out of good intentions. However, the fact is still the fact. It is necessary to avoid a false alarm or even improper reactions, which may hold things up. Therefore, immediately after I read the blog, I commented on it: “Judging from Carter’s personality and the situation when he visited DPRK several years before, it takes observation to see through the real intention in discussing the hostage issue with DPRK.”
That is based only on Carter’s personality and his visit to Iraq several years before. It is not necessary to feel frightened either, if looking at DPRK’s position in the U.S.’ diplomatic circle. So someone commented, “DPRK is at most a crazy fry to the U.S. But this fry seems to be able to disrupt the order in this area. … And he went on, “To the U.S., if China changes, so would DPRK. It’s not necessary to solve the single problem of DPRK at all. So DPRK cannot depend on its China card. … The U.S. would only make sure that DPRK is alive, but it’s unlikely that the U.S. would help DPRK to become another Asian tiger. There is no doubt that the U.S. focuses on China.” These words are pretty interesting on thorough consideration. At least it would not cause any misunderstanding or false alarm. The U.S. cannot tolerate DPRK, but the U.S. doesn’t have any economic interests there, so it doesn’t mind. The only thing the U.S. would mind is that DPRK does not make any trouble there. Of course the U.S. can tell that DPRK is waving the olive branch to it, but the U.S. doesn’t want to upset China because of DPRK. It’s not worthwhile to anger a guy who means a lot because of a guy who means little, and the U.S. knows it clearly! But the U.S. cannot ignore DPRK completely in the case that this fry would lose its mind. It can be seen that today’s DPRK is by no means the China in the triangle relationship among China, the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Now let’s take a look at some other leads. Some media pointed out that Carter’s visit to DPRK was on Kim Jong-il’s invitation. It is DPRK seeking for a diplomatic breakthrough to fulfill its goal to become a “big power” by 2012. But some other media said, “Carter may have imposed his own view on the U.S.’ policy. Carter’s view may be opposite to the U.S.’ policy to keep DPRK to its promise to give up its nuclear plan. Carter’s visit may weaken the ongoing efforts the U.S. is making to pressure DPRK to give up its nuclear plan and to observe the UN’s resolution and international law. Mr. Carter has made an unharmonious noise, and isn’t it a backfire? It is really like his visit to Iraq. To the U.S., Carter’s visit is defined as “pure humanitarian spirit.” Facing Kim’s regime, Carter’s visit has provided a chance to save face. Former U.S. President and Nobel Prize winner Carter has visited DPRK, and it surely has added glory to Kim, both father and son.
Of course, it is possible that Carter’s visit to DPRK this time may be “hostage diplomacy,” and we should be alarmed. But still, “it takes observation to see through the real intention in discussing the hostage issue with DPRK.” And one thing is certain: There is no need to feel too alarmed, in order to avoid getting political hypochondria.
Previous article![]( "A Tale of Two Mosques")
