Nothing Good Can Possibly Come of This

I posit the following: Jimmy Carter would not have agreed to go to North Korea had North Korea not agreed to release Aijalon Gomes. The North Koreans know Carter is the best friend they have in this country, and not even they are foolish enough to humiliate him by sending him home empty handed. I also posit that North Korea would not have induced Carter’s visit without the expectation of some benefit to the regime. At a minimum, they can count on Carter to hear whatever disingenuous offer they want to extend to the Obama Administration to weaken or forestall financial sanctions and broadcast that message in op-eds and NPR interviews.

My greater fear, however, is that Carter’s visit will facilitate the extension of some more tangible, regime-sustaining ransom. So it was with Bill Clinton. While he played tough and let William Perry hint darkly about air strikes, he ultimately allowed Carter to broker the Agreed Framework that irrevocably made North Korea a nuclear power. I have no cause to believe that Obama is playing us, but I have cause to be suspicious. Even paranoid people have real enemies, after all.

I’d like to hear those who supported the methods of Robert Park and Aijalon Gomes (as opposed to their intentions) tell me why Park and Gomes have done more good than harm.

0Shares

56 Responses

  1. I don’t think many in North Korea would believe that Mr Park’s confession was real. But I don’t imagine that was the even point of making him say it. The real message conveyed to the people of the North from Park’s confession was: we broke him, and we could break any of you too. As such, it probably only made the more scared than they had been.

    Regarding torture: in fairness, the people closest to him are the ones who are most likely to hyperbolise and exaggerate. After all, the ill-treatment of Mr Park would have caused them great personal pain. But that doesn’t make it torture. From what I have read so far, the allegation is that he was beaten so badly that he could hardly move for a month (which is debatable, and even if it were true, still may not be torture). The other allegation, about what those women did to him…at a push you could call it degradation, supposing a rather dysfunctional relationship with his own sexuality. Not torture.

  2. Dan Ó C, if I recall correctly, the allegations that he was beaten so badly he could hardly move for a month came from the Chosun Ilbo well before he was released.

    It may have come from insiders, but the way it was worded sounded like it was speculative about what usually happens, based on treatment of North Koreans who are returned to the DPRK or otherwise fall afoul of the authorities. That he is not a North Korean and that he is an American through whom the North Korean regime would want to exact reward would indicate he’s more likely to get kid-glove treatment.

    Laura Ling in her book describes physical assault when she was captured while fleeing, which would not have been a situation similar to Robert Park’s, considering how he entered and given that he wasn’t trying to flee.

    Has Robert Park publicly stated he was tortured? I don’t recall that he has.

  3. 1 2