Language Matters: Political Rhetoric and North Korea

The use of political rhetoric has played an important role in the recent nuclear deal with North Korea.

In the early years of his presidency, Bush’s rhetoric was often coarse, and sometimes straight-up nasty. Talking about North Korea, he famously referred to the nation back in 2002 as a part of the “Axis of Evil,” and he labeled its leader, Kim Jong Il, a “tyrant,” a “pygmy,” and “a spoiled child at a dinner table.” The effect of such rhetoric was disastrous. As the White House resorted to undiplomatic name-calling, animosity and mistrust grew between Washington and Pyongyang.

The North Korean government pridefully responded to the Bush administration’s bad language with some harsh words (and some counterproductive actions) of its own. Kim Jong Il called Bush a “dictator,” and he threatened (in 2003) to pull out of ongoing negotiations unless Washington changed its tone.

The appointment of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State in early 2005 was the first step in bridging the divide between the two countries. Upon taking office, Rice said that, in regards to North Korea, “the time for diplomacy is now.” She urged officials in the Bush administration to take a less hostile approach to Pyongyang and to be careful not to insult Kim Jong Il’s government.

Mr. Bush, in his State of the Union address in 2002, famously included North Korea in an “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and Iran, and Ms. Rice in January, before she became secretary of state, identified North Korea as an “outpost of tyranny.”

No such comments, however, have emanated from US officials in Washington since then, with the US making pointed statements that it respected the North’s sovereignty and had no intention of attacking the country. (The Christian Science Monitor)

The use of diplomatic, rather than hostile, language seems to have had an effect. Back in the fall of 2005, when an initial deal was reached (it eventually fell through over some technicalities) with North Korea, some of the credit seems to be due to the use of more polite rhetoric. An editorial in The New York Times, after the accord was announced, argued that only when “Washington abandoned the confrontational tactics and name-calling associated with its former top antiproliferation official, John Bolton, and gave serious negotiation a chance” was a breakthrough finally achieved.

Read the rest of the post at Foreign Policy Watch.