Home  >  Diplomacy

Silent vs. Vocal Diplomacy: More Thoughts on How the State Department is Approaching the Saberi and Lee-Ling Hostage Cases

[OFK:  It’s my great honor to present this first guest post from Jodi, formerly the author one of my very favorite K-blogs, The Asia Pages.  The end of the Asia Pages left many of us missing the warmth, compassion, honesty, and elegance of Jodi’s writing. I hope this will be just the first of many posts, and I hope you’ll join me in welcoming her.]

The United States is in an uncomfortable position: Three of its reporters have been detained by two countries which were identified by the Bush Administration as part of the infamous “axis of evil.” As the events surrounding the journalists’ fates have unfolded, it’s been interesting to observe the State Department’s approach in dealing with these two rogue nations in light of the hostage situations taking place.

Hands down, the Roxanna Saberi case in Iran has not only received more media attention than the detainment of Euna Lee and Laura Ling in North Korea, but it has also drawn harsher words from the United States with Hillary Clinton calling the accusations against Saberi “baseless and without foundation.” From her soapbox at the State Department, Clinton has even gone as far as saying that the U.S. “will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government” about the situation. And they most certainly should.

Interestingly enough, a similar reaction was never issued to North Korea in relation to the detainment of Lee and Ling. At most, we’ve heard how the State Department “is making every diplomatic effort to free the two women” – a rather muted response compared to the bold statements made in regard to Saberi’s detainment.

So what is the rationale behind these contrasting approaches?

Simply put, North Korea is not Iran. And when it comes to dealing with the two diplomatically, North Korea is much harder to crack compared to its evil twin in the Middle East.

North Korea, as we all know, is indifferent to U.S. threats and as readers of this blog have already mentioned, the regime craves attention. They have demonstrated that they have no problem using hostages for political gains, so the brighter the spotlight Washington gives to the Lee-Ling case, the more valuable the two reporters become. Opinions among readers on this blog have suggested that the less attention given to the two, the more likely we will see their eventual release as they will be less valuable to the regime.

(Unfortunately, that contradicts with the job of the media which is to report the news – something that isn’t happening with the Lee-Ling case.)

Given what we know about North Korea’s lust for attention, such opinions could be true, however, I can foresee this less aggressive approach by the United States backfiring as well; North Korea does have a tendency to act like a naughty child and like all spoiled brats, when it isn’t getting the attention it wants, it pushes the envelop a little further. It wouldn’t be surprising then, that in a defiant act of rebellion, North Korea goes through with sentencing Lee and Ling to years in a North Korea work camp, all because the U.S. wasn’t giving it the acknowledgment it wanted. (However, that doesn’t mean the States should always entertain the desires of terrorist regimes.)

As for the attention Saberi has been receiving, it has been proven in the past that Iran also has no problem using hostages for media attention, but unlike North Korea, the country does have a history of caving into pressure.

Case in point: Remember the royal navy hostage situation in 2007? Here’s a refresher in case you forgot. The naval crew was released days later in a “face-saving” gesture which Iran referred to as “a present to the British people.” As far as I know, the British didn’t pay a thing for the release of their crew but did ante up the pressure which resulted in their eventual freedom. When releasing the hostages, Ahmedinejad capitalized on the spotlight and used it to make himself look generous and forgiving, although thankfully, most of the world could see through that. Basically, Ahmedinejad used the captives to gain attention, and once he had his fill, he cut them lose.

North Korea, on the other hand, can’t seem to get enough of the spotlight. The regime seems to thrive off outside pressure and is even empowered by it which is why it will take any attention it can get – good or bad. Having said that, perhaps the White House is hoping that a little reverse psychology may do the trick.

Ultimately, I think Charles Pritchard, the U.S. negotiator with North Korea when the six-party talks began in 2003, is right: What North Korea really wants are bi-lateral talks with the United States. I suppose they are hoping the detention and show trial of Lee and Ling will increase their chances of having some individual face time with Obama – or at least get his attention.

But might I also suggest another reason for the muted tone coming from D.C. in regard to North Korea and the Lee-Ling case? Might this silence be related to the fact that until recently, Washington didn’t even have a nominee for assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs? Imagine how chaotic and unorganized it must be in the White House with this North Korea situation escalating, and no one in this position to consult with. Maybe this is a just a case of no one in D.C. knowing what to do or say, rather than a diplomatic tactic.

0Shares

11 Responses

  1. I have a feeling the level of silence on this from DC and the American press — will make it more likely the women will receive harsh treatment.

    If the US were making a big deal out of this, yes, it might be exactly what the North wants – to Pyongyang’s eyes, it makes them look strong in the world standing up to US pressure – and – the regime has enough historical precedent to believe the more pressure that builds, the more concessions they’ll gain as the US president and foreign policy team becomes desperate to “do something” to solve the problem.

    But, all the geopolitics of it aside —- focusing on the two women alone — I think Pyongyang stands a good chance of deciding that it can do more physical harm to them – especially the sister of the journalist who embarrassed the regime – the more indifference the US government and press shows.

    If this were a high profile case putting pressure on both the US and NK governments, I believe the North would think twice about torturing the women.

    But without the gains it hopes to get from making it high profile? — with the issue largely being ignored….. I think the regime will decide it can and wants to torture them…

    That’s the bad feeling I’ve got…

    …….I wonder what happened to that US helicopter crewman who got shot down when he strayed over the DMZ? I think it was back in the late 1990s….

    That was a big deal. The North gained a lot of propaganda value for it out of the attention it grabbed in the world news. I wonder if he was subjected to harsh physical treatment or not?

    Being a US soldier, you’d expect he’d have a greater probability than the reporters – but then again – given the undercover, high profile story one of their relatives did that embarrassed the regime — I don’t know….

    If that US pilot was not tortured, I’d most certainly have to chalk it up to how high profile the case was.

    I think it would also be a clear given that if that case had not been high profile, he would have been.

    I’m afraid the two female reporters are in the same spot. I don’t think this public indifference is going to help them. I have a bad feeling it will make things worse for them before they are handed over.

  2. The pilot case I’m thinking of was in late 1994. The pilot was killed and the second pilot’s name was Bobby Hall – if you want to google it. I’m still looking.

    He was in an unarmed helicopter that strayed into North Korean territory and was downed. They held him for only 13 days. I haven’t found anything yet that describes how he was treated.

    Bill Richardson was in NK at the time and the US Congress was considering the approval of AF 1.0 at the time. That means it was on the downside of the heightened tensions between the US and NK over its nuke program.

    The articles I’ve read so far show Pres. Clinton toughing his public messages on handing the co-pilot over as the issue progressed, and I remember it was a high profile incident. I think Clinton strengthening his words against Pyongyang should also be judged while considering the fact: the US plane was in the wrong. It wasn’t a spy mission, as the North claimed. It was clearly pilot error, but it was still a US craft going into North Korean territory.

    So….at least for Clinton back at that time, in that environment, he felt speaking out stronger was the better way to get the pilot home sooner rather than later.

    That’s where I’m at so far in checking back on this incident…

  4. The report on the pilot says he was not mistreated after the initial capture at the downed helicopter – that he was well fed and given adequate sleep and time to exercise.

    That’s encouraging. It was 14-15 years ago, but the North Korea regime is still the NK regime.

    It would be wrong to try to read too much into this old case, but, I’d interpret it at least to mean the North was mindful of what could have been at stake at the time – of what the repercussions could be if they had harmed the GI.

    It was 1994 and not the time of the Pueblo incident: NK had signed the deal on AF 1.0 and was awaiting the first shipment of fuel oil in the immediate future and waiting for the US Congress to sanction the deal. This was in the first phase, I’d take it, of what would eventually become NK’s horrible famine.

    NK is still in bad shape. It is still counting on getting things it probably needs to survive from America.

    That should give some hope that it will refrain from abusing the two reporters. Especially since they took things into consideration with the US pilot that strayed into their air space.

    I still think the US government would greatly increase the chance the two will not be mistreated if it would send a strong message through the press.

  5. That was an interesting case you shared. I actually wasn’t aware of it.

    Personally, I would be very surprised to hear that these women have NOT been abused and I would suspect via the Swiss Embassy that Washington knows the general condition of the reporters. However, I don’t know if the U.S. priority is to have them released unharmed as much as it is to simply have them released. From an emotional standpoint, I would like to see D.C. send a strong message to DPRK as well, but I do question whether that is the wise thing to do right now if we want to see these journalists sent home.

    I agree that sooner or later, the U.S. will have to do or say something, but perhaps they are waiting until after the show trial to make a move.

  6. We just hosted a viewing of “The Crossing” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asXUhAi-ENc&feature=related at Camp Henry, Daegu. I am numb. I cried through the whole thing. PLEASE people, watch this movie and share it with anyone that will watch it. My heart is in tatters. And the movie admits to telling a tenth of how bad it actually is…

    If this doesn’t move you to action on behalf of the North Korean people, you might not have a heartbeat.

    I’m staggered…

  7. Congratulations on your blogging debut at OFK. I think your post hit all the important reasons why Roxana Saberi’s imprisonment has gotten more public attention than that of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. I wonder if there isn’t a bit of unconscious lookism on the part of the media, too. Former beauty queen Roxana Saberi is striking in the most widely published photo showing her hair modestly covered in a soft blue headscarf while her vividly red full lips demand attention. Some media-watchers have complained that missing blondes get more attention than missing black women. Saberi’s case may be getting more media attention, and thus more public remarks from the State Dept. because stories about Saberi draw more readers.

  8. Well, I have to admit that I’m with Sonagi on this one (though the invention of new “isms” chafes at me). Not to disparage the appearance of Euna and Laura, who are both attractive to my eyes, but if they’d been posed and photographed as dramatically as this, they might have attracted more attention and support from their peers.

    There is also the fact that Iran is less opaque than North Korea, so Saberi’s courageous hunger strike comes to our attention. Ling and Lee could be just as brave, but we have no way of knowing.

  9. The level of silence on the two in Korea is still very baffling to me.

    They work for an Al Gore outfit, right?

    One is related to a well-known journalist who surely has connections. She also did an amazing story on NK from the inside under a covert cover.

    But the media doesn’t want to touch it and the gov. stays mum…..

    Has anyone seen any thing from Gore? You’d think the man’d have some sense of honor….