Chosun Ilbo’s Take on Dem Takeover Sketches Shape of New Realignment
Today is November 9th, which means that the official sulking period has ended, and it’s time to start picking your way though the banquet of bloggable delicacies of our new moveable feast. America has moved to the left, but it’s uncertain just how far. At the same time, Korea seems poised to move right just, and it’s not at all clear that either side will stop to shake hands if, and when, they cross paths.
A more elemental question is where each path will lead. The most important question now is where the new center of gravity will be in Congress. Plenty of the new crop of Dems seem to be centrists, and come from centrist districts. Historically, the Democrats have needed that centrist wing to be a majority party, but have had trouble keeping them under a tent woven from deep blue cloth. North Korea could be one manifestation of those differences. Take the issue of direct talks, probably the biggest difference between the parties, per se (though on that, several key Republicans side with Dems). Sure, talk if you must, but what actual demands are you really prepared to drop? The uranium program? Counterfeiting? Verification? Dismantlement of the nuclear program? Chem and bio weapons? Human rights? (Well, everyone has pretty much just paid lip service to that last one, if that). The Chosun Ilbo doesn’t think things will change much, and not to Korea’s advantage:
But if the six-party talks produce no results, the Democrats could become even more hawkish than the Republicans. “It was the Democratic administration which talked about the need to launch preemptive strikes on the North’s nuclear facilities in the 90s,” a Foreign Ministry official here said. “There is little fundamental difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the way they address North Korea.” Another official said only some in the Democratic Party stress dialogue with the North. You misunderstand the situation if you believe that the Democrats will favor appeasement of the North.
I have no doubt at all that some Democrats absolutely do favor appeasement of the North. So do a smaller number of Republicans. The question is whether that view will prevail, which depends on whether a solid majority can agree on it. I also believe that Democrats who speak of strikes are engaging in cheap talk. If they refer to William Perry, he had his chance to be tough. The Bush Administration is his chance to talk tough instead, without facing any real consequences for what he prescribes.
Rumsfeld’s resignation could help Seoul take over sole operational control of its troops as and when it wants since the defense secretary was keen on an early handover, sources said. At the same time, the Democrats are mainly interested in Korea shouldering a bigger share of U.S. Forces Korea upkeep, which could lead to fresh conflict between the allies.
My sincere hope is that based on Tom Lantos’s record — strong on human rights, a supporter of talks, but tough minded — he’ll call for direct talks but ultimately not expect us to give something for nothing. On human rights, the Republicans have talked a good game and done very little of consequences (we’ve taken in, what, nine refugees?). Some Democrats may be tempted to steal the issue from Republicans by making it an issue. I suspect that from Lantos himself, it won’t be cheap talk. He joined Rep. Frank Wolf as a co-author of what became the ADVANCE Democracy Act; later, he joined McCain, Wolf, and Lieberman in rolling it out publicly. Lantos is a Holocaust survivor. I suspect the experience shaped him. Could this portend a split between Dems in the foreign policy establishment and more idealistic Democrats? More importantly, could it mean a new left-right convergence on putting human rights back on the table? I hope so. North Korea will be a good test case for that, and North Korea’s food situation this winter may be the first place that manifests itself.
They also say that the FTA is in real trouble now, and on that, no less an authority than Rep. James Leach agrees. The Koreans’ excessive and unreasonable demands to exclude pretty much everything we want to sell have killed it, and if they think pro-union Democrats are going to let Kaesong into the kitchen, they’re fooling themselves. Fact is, the Dems are in a very isolationist mood. Not only does that portend badly for USFK’s ground component, but if Democrats win again in 2008, it portends badly for keeping our air power there, too.
My first instinct was to say the dems getting Congress would not change NK policy, but I do have to give it a 25% chance on second thought:
If they go for one-on-one talks, there will be pressure to “achieve” something, since it seems to me the only real reason they were calling for such talks was because it was against the “do nothing” policy of Bush. It was not a “do nothing” policy on NK. That was the lie they used to score points, but they still used the lie, and probably kind of bought into it, and now that they have some power, how can they not “do something” in response? And 1-on-1 talks are more likely to put the typical pressure to “get something done” that any negociation meeting has with it.
In the end, however, I don’t picture a shift in NK policy until the dems get the White House, if then. Especially since it seems the Bush approach has finally gotten some movement out of the North.
Policy with South Korea, however, could take a big turn.
Rumsfeld didn’t get the can kicked far enough down the road to make the momentum of change hard to reverse. It could easily be reversed where we are at now, and there is a good chance it will be. Mammoth things like the US committment to South Korea are hard to change fundamentally – especially when one side doesn’t really want change (SK).
And the track record in Korea has for a very long time been — SK pushing things then dragging its feet. The US Embassy and Yongsan being 2 examples. I believe we will add command transfer to that list. With Rumsfeld gone and the reps having taken a spanking, I think it is likely command transfer will not come by 2009 or 2012.
It will not suprise me if the Pyongtaek expansion is scaled down to the point it is basically a new plan – with much of Yongsan remaining. Maybe that is getting carried away on my part, but I can see it happening.
On the FTA, the dems in office will make no difference. That was a dead horse in the gate.
This from ‘Wretchard’ at The Belmont Club:
Rumsfeld resigns
Before the Democratic Party enunciates or even considers a policy on Iraq. The argument that this is a necessary mea culpa, a necessary retreat comes up against the question: retreat to what? Every rearguard action has a fallback line of defense prepared. Since the Democrats have not indicated where they want the retreat to stop, and there is no indication that the President has prepared a fallback position the appropriate term isn’t a rearguard action. Retreats without an endpoint have another name. They are called a rout.
There is no sense getting excited about Rumsfeld’s resignation. It is but the first step on a long road to … has anyone decided yet? Therefore the only rational thing to do is relax. Take a loaf of French bread and cut off two slices with a utility saw and make another mayo and peanut butter sandwich. Sooner or later the enemy is going to realize what the Guderian knew in 1940. That it doesn’t matter how many men, tanks or forts are serried before you. If there is no mind in opposition, and no awareness of the need to set a mind in opposition, then the road to Paris is open. The bread is theirs. The saw is ours. And the sandwich is good.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-resigns.html
I don’t believe that a simple Congressional realignment will change the big issues of the day between Korea and the US.
Congress doesn’t conduct foreign policy and even if they want to force some changes, I doubt Korea would be where they expend their ammo.
Iraq will be on Pelosi’s and the Dem’s agenda and her Congress will be tearing Bush a new one every day over Iraq up until the 2008 elections are over. The election just proved that Republicans will vote for Dems if Iraq is smelling bad. Pelosi will be airing out all of Bush’s dirty laundry so that 2008 Republicans will continue to hold their noses and vote Dem. For that reason, I think Korea is a sideshow and they won’t stir things up.
One other issue that will affect ROK. Guess what budget is going to get squeezed. DOD will have to make do with less. So is the DOD still willing to expend future billions to buttress the garrison in ROK? When pet projects are getting shrunk? I think this will keep the US on its present path of reducing support for the ROK.
I agree with changehappens. The focus of Congress will be on Iraq and Bush-bashing. Although I’m sure the Dems have a well thought out strategy for bashing Bush, now they are on the hook for coming up with a better plan for dealing with Iraq (since they obviously didn’t have one to speak of during the campaign period).
The antics of both Koreas over the past decade have left a bad taste in the mouths of American lawmakers. I think changehappens was also right in pointing out the coming budget changes that might actually speed up the USFK reduction.
I am biased of course. The way I see it, we either make S Korea the 51st State (at least then we can justify all of the tax dollars we spend defending it and bullshit our troops put up with), or send the ungrateful, adolescent (behavior-wise anyway) S Koreans out into the big scary world to fend for themselves using their uber economy to pay the bills…
You guys are forgetting that Nancy Pelosi was and remains a very strong supporter of human rights in China and a foe of totalitarian and repressive regimes everywhere.. Bush and Kim Jong Il are sort of locked in some kind of dysfunctional relationship.. which might be translated into a realization that they need and feed off each other.. arrgh..
Lets stop enabling this situation. They are addicts and this is addictive behavior.
Kim would really hate is not having Bush around. He’s an excuse to divert attention from himself..he can exhort the poor North Koreans to tighten their belts still more and hate the US. Bush does a similar dance.. Can’t any of you see that people like him actually fear the downfall of Kim Jong Il because they would have one less evil twin to point to to show ‘hey, we’re not THAT bad’ (and its true, thank God..)
“Can’t any of you see that people like him actually fear the downfall of Kim Jong Il because they would have one less evil twin to point to to show ‘hey, we’re not THAT bad’ (and its true, thank God..) ”
No, but I’d love an intro to your weed supplier, Chris.
Is that Chris from the much-missed Free North Korea? Hope you’re feeling well.