Bill Clinton: Rescuing Leader or Reckless Negotiator?

The unexpected visit to North Korea by Bill Clinton, the former American president, which ended up with the liberation of two American journalists, has surprised the whole world.

Opinions concerning the demonstration of diplomacy and negotiations are divided among the population. The majority admits that Clinton’s visit had an impact on Obama’s administration, even though the White House’s current leader has denied any connection to Clinton’s initiative.

Clinton’s presence in Pyongyang in a time where there is practically no diplomacy in American-North Korean relations raises the question of whether there is a possible “warming” and simultaneous “yielding” of America to the North Korean communists.

Clinton’s visit should be looked upon in context: the former president shares a long history with the North Koreans.

In 1994, North Korea had intentions of producing enriched plutonium at Yongbyon. This objective was stopped by Clinton’s administration, which unleashed a series of negotiations in a time when both countries seemed to be prepared to go to war.

At Clinton’s request, another former American president, Jimmy Carter, intervened as an independent negotiator. Carter helped the Pyongyang leader at that time, Kim II Sung, find a way out from the deadlock.

Even at the current meeting, Clinton was not viewed by the North Koreans as an “uninterested” negotiator. His wife, Hillary, is the secretary of state in the current administration, and many of his former collaborators are Obama’s counselors. At the same time, no one doubts that the former president didn’t receive permission from Obama’s administration to engage in such a meeting.

It is clear, in spite of multiple denials, that Clinton was perceived as directly sent from the White House and also as a representative of American external policy. However, the meeting was a victory for the leader Kim Jong-il.

It is true, the “rescuing” intervention style of America’s former presidents is practiced frequently at the White House, where former leaders continue to exert influence and act in American foreign policy.

The White House has tried to portray Clinton’s quick visit (less than 24 hours) as a “humanitarian mission” regarding the liberation of the two journalists; a visit made only on Clinton’s own initiative, with no consulting from the current administration.

The release of the two women was truly a strong accomplishment, a successful humanitarian effort.

What about other American journalists who are detained around the world? Should Roxana Saberi, a detained journalist in Iran, one of the countries in the “Axis of Evil,” also be expecting a rescue visit from Clinton?

And what kind of message does this humanitarian action send to all the dictatorships throughout the world? When Pyongyang uses Clinton’s humanitarian mission as state propaganda to convey a message such as “our foreign policy is offering results and the Americans need us more,” what kind of idea does that suggest to Iran and other dictatorships throughout the world?

Should the leaders of these countries understand that they can force Washington’s hand just by kidnapping American citizens and later asking for concessions in return for their liberation?

It is clear that Clinton’s quick visit to North Korea will have more serious consequences than initially assumed.

However, in the case that Pyongyang signs the non-proliferation act, then a different outcome might result from this meeting and we will be able to talk about Clinton’s success (and the American administration’s) in North Korea.