Media, White House Slowly Catching Up with Social Media Coverage of Lee-Ling Case
With Roxana Saberi’s recent release from imprisonment in Iran, I have noticed an uptick in media mentions of Laura Ling and Euna Lee – a positive change of course coming from mainstream media. While I agree, what may work for Iran may not work with North Korea in terms of dealing with detained U.S. citizens, it’s good to see this case getting more media attention, even if it seems to be treated as an afterthought.
(By the way, I have in the past used the term “hostage” to describe Lee and Ling, and it has been pointed out that the term may be incorrect for this situation. To the best of my knowledge, no vocal demands have been made by the DPRK in exchange for their release. However, I still think they are being held in the hopes that the U.S. will grant bi-lateral talks with North Korea or that the States will give more aid to the country in exchange for the return of these two women. But since I have not heard of such demands being officially made, technically speaking, the two are not “hostages.)
Perhaps taking a page from the media (or perhaps because journalists have returned to their jobs of asking the right questions), the White House has also mentioned the women in public, although contrary to Iran, Washington’s stance toward North Korea seems a bit restrained.
From the Daily NK:
Commenting in [Monday’s] Washington Post, Professor Victor Cha criticized the U.S. administration for having “done little” to save Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Accepting that the international community should strive to avoid giving in to what he called “North Korean extortion tactics,” and that the U.S. does not have a consular mission in Pyongyang through which to operate, Professor Cha nevertheless pointed out that the U.S. must not “stand by and watch these innocent women be thrown into the living hell of North Korean labor camps.
In the piece, Professor Cha suggested sending a high level envoy such as Al Gore to Pyongyang to secure the journalists’ release, whilst gaining an insight into the state of Pyongyang politics at the same time. However, Spokesman [Ian] Kelly rejected the idea, saying that, for whatever purpose, “It’s too early to go to North Korea.
While the media have, until recently, been quiet on the topic of Lee and Ling’s imprisonment, and while Washington continues to dodge the issue as much as it can, social media users have taken up the women’s case online. Users have essentially filled in the gaps mainstream media have left open in light of the case. For example, a Facebook group has been established in the effort to create more awareness to the fate of the reporters. As of 10 a.m. this morning, 580 people had joined the group with comments and discussion posted on the group’s “wall.”
In addition, a Twitter account has been set up with the aim of using social media as a way to speed up the release of Lee and Ling. As of 10 a.m. this morning, the account had 1,260 followers. The same account holder also links to an online petition demanding the release of the two journalists. The petition is actually part of an entire Web site dedicated to the cause.
Discussion about Lee and Ling and complaints regarding the lack of media attention given to them have dominated online conversations, particularly on Twitter. Twitter user @LiberateLaura has done a great job posting whatever media coverage can be found on the situation, while simultaneously attracting an eclectic following which includes one user identifying himself as an African now living in New Jersey who fled North Korea after forced 1981-87 servitude as a student.
Testing the Twitter waters on the subject, I posed a question to users regarding Ian Kelly’s cryptic statement Monday that it was “too early to go to North Korea” about the imprisonment of Lee and Ling. I was looking for opinions out there surrounding Washington’s timid reaction to the journalists in Kim Jong Il’s possession.
I received one response that perhaps accurately reflects the delicate situation facing the White House. From @Leftsider: “IMHO, “˜too early’ means “˜not enough leverage.’ Basic thinking being, most likely, will we capitulate every time they detain ppl?”
Thought-provoking fodder indeed.
If the two women did cross the border intentionally or unintentionally, they’re not innocent. They do not, however, deserve detention without trial and certainly not imprisonment.
It’s just been announced that the reporters will stand trial June 4.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54D0A620090514
I am not understanding how this event has unfolded.
Given the identity of the one woman — her connection to the woman who did that undercover report that embarrassed and exposed the regime — it was immediately clear the chance of torture and other harsh treatment was high.
The best way to try to influence such an outcome was obviously to raise a big stink about the issue immediately: to make it clear to Pyongyang that the US government felt the well-being of the reporters was a top priority. Such moves by the US would also gain much media attention on the issue which would further pressure NK – because they would not want other nations to more easily agree with any sanctions and other moves the US would do if it is discovered the women were mistreated.
As I’ve said before, silence would seem likely to be viewed as a signal to Pyongyang that it can do whatever it wishes to these women – because the US government and media doesn’t care enough about them to make a big deal of it.
At the very least, the US government should have been demanding from the very start that regular access be granted to the women — if not with US officials then South Korean or the Swiss or someone from the International Red Cross or similar organization that has people in NK or could send people to stay there for this purpose.
If the US has already been doing this — if it has had multiple, recurring access to these women that we haven’t heard about, then I can understand the silence. If they the government knows for sure they are not being mistreated – then I can understand wanting to keep the issue low profile as a means to avoid the usual brinkmanship that always sees us cave by giving the North some level of material gains.
But, if we do not have definitive knowledge that these women are being treated well, the level of silence makes no sense to me at all.
It would have to be a sign of callous regard for their well-being.
I can understand Obama being behind the curve on this since he just got into office.
But, the people in charge of setting up his Far East team and others advising on foreign policy matters should have regular knowledge about NK and stuff like this. They should have been more than ready to hit the ground running as soon as this issue popped up.
That goes for the whole bureaucratic structure – the State Department, the US Embassy in China and SK, the intel agencies and so on. Any of those career workers related to East Asia know more than enough to formulate instant ideas when a situation like this arises —-
— I mean, if K-bloggers can do it – and did —- they should be well ahead of the curve.
So they must feel like this silence is the way to go. I can’t imagine why – though I’ve been trying.
Unless they just are callous about what could be happening to those women – or at least the one.
Back to Sonagi’s comment.
This might have been mentioned before and I just missed it, but how about this thought:
Is U.S. hesitation in dealing with this situation related to the possibility that these women are actually guilty of the charge of illegally entering North Korea and therefore, it makes a U.S. demand for their freedom more complicated?
A reliable source tells me they were actually in North Korea, and you have to wonder why China wouldn’t put up more of a stink if North Korean soldiers were known to have entered Chinese territory to abduct these two reporters. (Then again, China hasn’t been all that helpful in the situation so far.)
Anyway, just a thought.
Our “reliable” sources are telling us slightly different things, then, but that doesn’t completely astonish me. Our government almost certainly knows the truth because it’s debriefed Mitch Koss, but the rest of us don’t have anything very solid to go on. Given the State Department’s highly conflicted motives here, I question that we’ll ever really know what happened here.
Plus, we still haven’t fully explored Manbearpig’s possible role.
I think where they were caught is largely immaterial in a variety of senses:
We’ve already mentioned the immigration angle, so I’ll leave that there.
On the complications it might make for the US if they were in NK territory, the US can stage whatever response it wants. The point of raising hell about it wouldn’t be to right an injustice of an arrest on Chinese soil — the point would be to pressure Pyongyang to release the two as soon as possible – regardless if they are guilty of violating NK territory or not. Put another way, the goal should be to get these women out of North Korea soon – not to see justice done or not done. There is no ample reason for the North to holding whether they crossed the border or not, and the nature of the regime makes it imperative to get them out now.
Inotherwords, even if the US knew the two had crossed into NK a short ways, it should lie and keep hammering NK in the press to release the two “innocent” people now.
On China’s silence on the guards taking them — I seem to remember reading in different places that — NK guards cross the border fairly regularly for different reasons – one of which is nabbing refugees. I can picture China getting upset when it learned how high profile the 2 were – that they were foreign reporters – but I don’t see how China would feel great outrage at the nabbing itself.
Also, China would likely want to keep any anger voiced behind the scenes for Pyongyang’s ears only in order to prevent creating a lot of media buzz and making the situation worse for China being NK’s only ally. The more low key this is, the better it is for China.
That is another thing about the US silence — it gives China reason to stay low key as well. If we want China to twist NK’s arm to release the two, a big public stink would help in twisting China’s arm.
I wanted to try another shot at my point because it is important for how this issue is being viewed:
The abnormality of the rule of law in North Korea negates the application of it.
If a law or legal system is highly unjust, the fact that you broke the law does not justify the system’s enforcement of it.
Virtually no other nation in the world, and none in the civilized world, would treat these reporters as anything but a brief immigration issue if they had been caught just over the border.
NK’s paranoia and/or despotism can’t be a justification for its acting dispotic.
Maybe if someone were cynical, they could point to the two reporters and say, “You knew what would happen if you were caught, so you’re idiots for trying it.”
But, it would be a big step to far to say, “You are getting what you deserve.”
There is no legitimate excuse for NK holding these two.
I totally agree, usinkorea.
I agree, Josh…we may never know the facts of what happened, and I’m also not surprised our sources are saying different things.
The more I thought about this, the more I realized that our information may not be inconsistent after all, so I went back and checked what I’d been told. I was told that Ling and Lee were lured to the area by a Chinese guide, who later disappeared and may have been a NK agent, but I was not told whether they were lured to the Chinese side of the border or the North Korean side. Assuming that Ling and Lee did cross the border, one should not also assume that they even realized which side of the border they were on. I’m sure the Chinese know, and I’m sure our own government knows. But what you heard and what I heard aren’t necessarily inconsistent.
I thought of this:
Picture that we’re talking about the South during Segregation and – say – there was a law in my hometown in GA that says it is illegal for a black person to get a drink of water from a whites only water fountain and that anyone caught breaking the law would get a minimum of 30 days in jail. — And we happen to see a black man getting arrested for taking a drink:
Nobody would say to him, “Hey, you know, I’d really like to express great moral outrage at how you’re being treated, but, the law’s the law, and you did break it – so my hands are tied…”
The fact the women did or didn’t cross just over the border is immaterial due to the outrageous nature of both the North’s long history of despotism and its specifically holding the women for so long when no other human rights abiding nation would.
In short, there is a perfectly good foundation for the US government to raise hell about this regardless of where the two were captured.