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.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Language Matters: Political Rhetoric and North Korea”
Foreign affairs is not President Bush’s long suit. He has made a botch of it with his Iraq invasion being his greatest blunder. He seemed to have thought that the best way to conduct foreign policy is through the use of force or the threat of force.
His arrogance has aliented much of the world and strained relations with allies. Much of the world has lost respect for the United States because of his foreign policy. He still will not talk with Iran or Syria in an effort to end the violence in Iraq and bring peace to the Middle East even though it has been made clear to him that talks with enemies like the Soviet Union and China prevented a nuclear war that would have destroyed the world. Yes, talking with enemies can bring about positive results. North Korea didn’t come around until the United States became less insulting. He just doesn’t know what he is doing and, worse, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.
I know this is the wrong place for this… but check out this news about former NBA player Tim Hardaway:
Le Batard: How do you deal with a gay teammate?
Hardaway: “First of all I wouldn’t want him on my team. And second of all, if he was on my team, you know, I would really distance myself from him because, uh, I don’t think that is right. I don’t think that he should be in the locker room while we are in the locker room, and it’s just a whole lot of other things and I wouldn’t even be a part of that. But stuff like that is going on and there’s a lot of other people I hear that are like that and still in the closet and don’t want to come out of the closet, but you know I just leave that alone.
Le Batard: You know what you are saying there is flatly homophobic? It’s bigotry?
Hardaway: “Well, you know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States. So yeah, I don’t like it.”
Good point, Dick. The failure to engage with our enemies in 1-on-1 dialogue is a huge strategic blunder.
Actually Jeb, I did get the impression from this article that you were trying to suggest that. So if not, then what other factors do you see as having had a positive effect?
“what other factors do you see as having had a positive effect? ”
———-
China.
domajot, yes China does not want an arms race in Asia. China has no interest in Japan and Tiawan using fear of North Korea to begin nuclear weapons programs. They are also trying to engage North Koreas younger generation who look to the economic revolution going on in China as an example for Korea to follow. As the old guard dies off in Korea Kims position becomes less secure, he wants his son to take over creating an opening for a younger and more pragmatic generation of leaders to put an end to the dynasty and set Korea on a new course.
Please don’t give ‘new shoes’ Condo so much credit. If a Bolton hack was at the table it would still be going nowhere. Chris Hill has the resume and the Koreans respect him. Give credit where credit is due.
It just shows that a carrot and stick approach works much better with dangerous foes than the stick alone. I agree with the first commenter- diplomacy is not this administration’s strong point, though the 6-party talks was a good idea that brought them success. “Axis of Evil” rhetoric only antagonizes our enemies, who feel backed into a corner. Rather than retreat, many have united against us.