U.S. Diplomacy

The Financial Times reports the United States has reached a compromise with North Korea over declaration of its nuclear activities.  The United States has agreed Pyongyang does not need to publicly state a complete declaration of its nuclear activities.  The compromise would allow for a “secret side-agreement” in which North Korea would acknowledge concerns over proliferation and uranium enrichment, but a public document would include a complete declaration of its plutonium program.

Further details still need to be worked out before its granted the President’s approval.  Also, “US officials are preparing to return to Pyongyang… to assess claims that North Korea only harvested 30kg of plutonium. Japan is also insisting North Korea account for Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korea over several decades.”

Check out the article.

From April 11^th to April 17th, 1971 a group of Americans were invited to play ping pong in China. Dubbed ping pong diplomacy, it helped improve U.S.-China relations. In fact, on April 14^th of that year the United States announced it would end it’s trade embargo with China. One year later Nixon made his infamous trip to China. In another attempt to utilize American soft power, the New York Philharmonic orchestra arrived in Pyongyang yesterday. The orchestra played on Tuesday night (which due to the time difference has already ended) and was broadcasted on North Korea’s state-run TV and radio.

Playing a concert may seem ho-hum here, however in North Korea one can be thrown in jail for listening to a foreign broadcast. What’s more, North Koreans are now more likely to hear foreign broadcasts as a result of trade with China:

“Activists working to improve human rights in North Korea largely agree that there is a unique window of opportunity at this time.

One reason is the growing availability of radios. The short-wave radios sold in North Korea are relatively expensive, come fixed to state-run stations, and must be registered with the authorities. However, thanks to a growing cross-border trade with China, much of it unofficial, cheap AM radios are proliferating in North Korea — along with used videotape players that Chinese seek to sell when they upgrade to DVD players.

There’s anecdotal evidence that one-third or more of the population has access to AM radios that can be freely tuned to nongovernment stations, according to Mr. Lefkowitz, an estimate confirmed by other North Korea watchers. The Chinese radios are also small, which means that they are easier to hide.”

While it is too soon to infer what influence the New York Philharmonic orchestra had, Musical Director Lorin Maazel can point to it’s influence in the past. “It [the New York Philharmonic orchestra] showed Soviet citizens that they could have relations with foreign organizations and these organizations could come in the country freely,’ he said. ‘But what the Soviets didn’t realize was, this was a two-edged sword.’

‘By allowing interactions between people from outside the country with people inside, eventually the people found themselves out of power.”

In an op-ed, Maazel wrote, “I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there. If we are gradually to improve U.S.-Korean relations, such events have the potential to nudge open a door that has been closed too long.”

The New York Philharmonic orchestra may be just the first round of a new musical diplomacy. Indeed, the Guardian is reporting today that Eric Clapton has been invited to play in North Korea. As a great classic rock band once wrote, “Whoa, we got to let the music play.”

(Associated Press photo)

Secretary Rice gave her last testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

The hearing began with a moment of silence in memory of the recently-deceased California Democrat and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Tom Lantos. Howard L. Berman, another California Democrat, was appointed as the Committee’s Acting Chairman.

He began his chairmanship by welcoming the increase in spending for the State Department’s budget: “Madame Secretary, I strongly support the Administration’s overall international affairs budget request for Fiscal Year 2009. It surpasses current spending by nearly three billion dollars, a welcome turn of events.”

Congressman Berman continued: “The new budget request starts to address the reality that we have been far too slow to face: Our civilian agencies are woefully unprepared to handle the unprecedented global security challenges confronting the United States today.

Here’s just one example of that: A study just released by the RAND Corporation shows that despite the common notion that civil capabilities and military power are equally important to counterinsurgency operations overseas, the meager and infrequent bump-ups in the State Department’s budget have been “dwarfed” by massive increases in Pentagon spending. The report goes on to note, and I’m quoting here: “If Islamic insurgency is the gravest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces.” It goes on to say that we “must invest to correct (these) deficiencies and imbalances.”

Acting Chairman Berman’s full remarks can be viewed here.

The Committee’s minority leader, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also lamented Lantos’ death and then went on to express her concerns about a long list of challenges for US foreign policy, including: nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and others. You may access the full text of her remarks here.

Next Secretary Rice made her opening remarks, a transcript of which can be viewed here (as delivered). (A video of Secretary Rice’s testimony can be viewed by clicking here, and a video of the entire hearing can be viewed here).

Contrary to the hearing’s title “International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2009,” the remarks of both the lawmakers and the witness focused only briefly on the budget request, and more so on a variety of hot button conflicts in the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli/Palestinian issue, US troop commitment in Iraq, the Lebanon/Syria relationship—the Pakistani election and relations with China. The bulk of Secretary Rice’s discussion about the budget is contained in her prepared remarks, which were provided to the Committee in advance.

Congressman Ackerman used this opportunity to press Secretary Rice on whether her administration intends to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. The issue caused controversy earlier this month when President Bush left the option open–in opposition to Congress’ wishes, while members of his administration spoke otherwise. In the hearing Secretary Rice confirmed that it is “not our intention to seek permanent military bases in Iraq.”

It appears that foreign audiences were also eagerly watching Rise’s testimony. The Armenian online news site Defacto reported on Congressman Brad Sherman’s proposed budget for Armenia. The Russian online news outlet Kommersant reviewed the testimony with particular attention to the Secretary’s and lawmaker’s remarks toward Russia.

Jay Lefkowitz, the US Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights, spoke at AEI last week of a renewed debate within the administration over its restrained diplomacy track with North Korea. Indeed, he offered three concrete steps for future engagement:

“1. We should now shift our focus from a short to a longer time frame. It is increasingly likely that North Korea will have the same nuclear status one year from now that it has today.

2. Policy should rest on assumptions that correlate with recent facts and events. It is evident that South Korea and China will not exert significant pressure on North Korea if they think it might lead to its collapse.

3. All negotiations with North Korea should firmly link human rights, economic support, and security issues.”

State Dept. spokesman Sean McCormack was quick to distance the administration from Lefkowitz’s comments. “He [Lefkowitz] is not, however, somebody who speaks authoritatively about the six-party talks. His comments certainly don’t represent the views of the administration.” However, North Korea policy likely falls along the usual fault lines within the Administration. The Vice President’s office arguing for a tougher stance, whereas the State Department maintains diplomatic tenets, working with the most recent agreement made during six-party talks.

Another possibility is at play here, and seems to be consistent with our policy and rhetoric towards Iran. Sending out ripples of a tougher stance towards North Korea might be a useful diplomatic tool. Articulating stronger costs for not acting, could push North Korea to meet future deadlines, which they have already shown a penchant to delay or miss.

Perhaps sensing the debate brewing at the White House, John Bolton penned an op-ed arguing for the United States to abandon the agreement reached last year. Bolton has long held animosity towards any deal with North Korea lacking tough measures for failure to comply.

Bolton sees a window of opportunity for President Bush. “Given the recent South Korean presidential election results, Mr. Bush will soon have a willing ally in Lee Myung-bak, who will be inaugurated on Feb. 25. After 10 years, a realist will once again occupy Seoul’s Blue House, one who will support a tougher American line rather than oppose it.”

As Timothy Savage of North Korea zone notes, a shift in the diplomatic track with North Korea could be announced during the upcoming state of the union address. We will certainly be listening here and report back any significant changes, if they’re mentioned.