White House to Name New N.K. Human Rights Envoy
As you may recall, the North Korean Human Rights Act (specifically, section 107) created a new position of Special Envoy on Human Rights in North Korea. As of last week, none of my impeccable sources knew who this person would be–one heard the rumor yesterday–so this does appear to be a very new development. And he appears to be an excellent choice, judging by the panic in the South Korean press:
Officials connected with the North Korean human rights movement said Thursday the U.S. has tentatively decided to name former White House domestic policy advisor and noted neocon Jay Lefkowitz as special envoy for human rights in North Korea.
The special envoy will be tasked with making and execution of U.S. policy concerning North Korean human rights in an ambassador-level position created when the North Korean Human Rights Act went into effect in October.
The U.S. had put off naming an envoy for the last six months to avoid provoking North Korea, but analysts believe the naming of a neoconservative at this juncture shows Washington is no longer prepared to tread softly now that tensions over Pyongyang’s nuclear program are approaching crisis level.
More of Lefkowitz’s views here.
In one sense, the report’s “analysts” are right. This could well be a sign that President Bush and his administration have dispensed with the mendacious nicety of ignoring human rights for diplomacy’s sake, something reportedly forced on Bush by Roh Moo-Hyun, according to this recent New York Times report:
White House officials have declined to say what role President Bush has played in the new strategy. But his dislike for Mr. Kim is well known, and his involvement in strategies to deal with him was described by one former official as “a lot more intense than you might think.”
Advisers, military officials and American and foreign diplomats who deal with Mr. Bush on North Korean issues say he frequently criticizes Mr. Kim’s human rights abuses, referring to him as “immoral” and “a tyrant,” according to one official who sat in on a recent meeting. In a meeting in December with President Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea, Mr. Bush spoke about how Mr. Kim lets his people starve.
“Roh said to him, ‘Yeah, he’s a bad guy, but we don’t have to say it in public,’ ” said one official who has reviewed notes of the session. Mr. Roh’s point was that turning the nuclear dispute into a personal confrontation, the way the Bush administration did with Saddam Hussein, could undercut any chance of diplomatic success in disarming North Korea.
Mr. Bush, the official recounted, responded, ” ‘Alright, I won’t say it publicly,’ or words to that effect, and so far he hasn’t.”
In another sense, however, as the issue relates to “Washington” as a whole, the report misses the point, because while some of us certainly see regime change as the answer to both the nuclear and human rights crises, it’s far from the universal view of everyone in the government. As Rep. Jim Leach, a major force behind the NKHRA stated in a hearing just last week, human rights issues in North Korea–unlike diplomatic policy–are neither partisan nor controversial. Leach says it better than I can:
Put simply, while each of us as individuals may not be, the North Korean Human Rights Act is agnostic about regime change, but emphatic about behavior change.
Of course, there are always exceptions, consisting in this case of a small collection of apologists from the political fringe and raving moonbats, although there are certainly some proponents of realpolitik who consider the emphasis inconvenient. That said, any legislation that gets through both houses of Congress on a voice vote and without opposition cannot be fairly said to indicate that everyone in the United States sees the nuclear diplomacy as I see it–something that will only be solved with the overthrow of the current North Korean regime.
Lefkowitz has a background in both diplomacy and human rights, and the Chosun Ilbo reports what his previous appointments suggest–that he’s known to have the trust of President Bush. That was an issue whose importance I noted here in January (scroll down to the comments on Rabbi Saperstein) when the speculation of this appointment began.