"Private" Diplomacy: Following Clinton Visit, North Korea Pardons U.S. Journalists

Today, Bill Clinton met with Kim Jong Il and other North Korean officials during what the White House has described as a "private" mission. Hours after their meeting, North Korea has reportedly pardoned two United States journalists that were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for allegedly committing "hostile acts" against the country (thanks to The Common Room for the tip).

Earlier today, I argued that describing Clinton's visit a "private" mission is less than honest. Given Clinton's status as a former president and Hillary Clinton's status as the current Secretary of State (not to mention the strained relations between the United States and North Korea), his visit definitely has diplomatic overtones, and it was possibly designed for that purpose. John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, agrees, but he concludes that the mission was "unwise." In a Washington Post op-ed, Bolton argues that:

[T]he Clinton trip is a significant propaganda victory for North Korea, whether
or not he carried an official message from President Obama. Despite decades of
bipartisan U.S. rhetoric about not negotiating with terrorists for the release
of hostages, it seems that the Obama administration not only chose to negotiate,
but to send a former president to do so.

I certainly lack the ability to predict the impact that Clinton's visit will have on United States national security, and Bolton seems to concede his inability to do so as well. And while I am reluctant to embrace Bolton's gloomy forecast, I agree with his observation that billing the mission as a private venture does not separate it from United States foreign affairs.

Does E.J. Dionne Believe President Obama "Manipulated" Him?

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne ranks among President Obama's most ardent media fans. During the Democratic primaries and the national election campaign, almost all of Dionne's weekly columns praised Obama or criticized his political foes. Therefore, if Dionne criticizes Obama -- even if only subtly -- the moment warrants discussion. Dionne's latest column presents such an opportunity.

In his most recent article, Dionne discusses Obama's centrist politics. Dionne argues that in order to build a political coalition to support his policies, Obama employs multiple, perhaps conflicting, messages.

To support his argument, Dionne describes a gathering of media commentators at the White House prior to Obama's recent speech on national security. Dionne's portrayal of the event demonstrates that Obama intentionally retools his message in order to mollify all ideological camps (except for the far right). According to Dionne:

The disturbing aspect of Obama's effort to create [a broad political coalition] is that building it requires him to send rather different messages to its component parts. Playing to several audiences at once can lead to awkward moments.

Last Thursday afternoon, for example, the White House invited in journalists, mostly opinion writers, to sell them on the substance of the president's big speech on Guantanamo and the treatment of detainees.

Unbeknown to the writers until afterward, they had been divided into two groups, one more centrist with a sprinkling of moderate conservatives, the other more liberal. (I was in the liberal group.) The president made an unscheduled appearance at each briefing. As is his way, he charmed both groups.

The idea, as far as I can determine, was to sell the liberal group on those aspects of Obama's plan that are a break from George W. Bush's policies, and to sell the centrist group on the toughness of the president's approach and the fact that it squares with Bush's more moderate moves later in his second term.

Obama's coalition strategy sounds a lot like the "triangulation" moves by Bill Clinton that Democrats feverishly (foolishly?) condemned during the 2008 primaries and unlike the themes of transparency and change that formed such an integral part of his campaign narrative. Perhaps the orchestrated event proves that Obama, like other politicians, employs mixed messages and stages his appearances in order to broaden political support and to win votes and support.

The closing passage of Dionne's essay suggests that the President's secret maneuver caused him discomfort.. According to Dionne, Obama's efforts to maintain smooth relations with so many different ideological groups could backfire:

[E]stablishments have a habit of becoming too confident in their ability to manipulate people and events, and too certain of their own moral righteousness. Obama's political and substantive gifts are undeniable. What he needs to realize are the limits of his own mastery.

Dionne's essay comes across as a very subtle and diplomatic effort of an adoring fan to criticize Obama for manipulating people with shifting rhetoric. Dionne also seems to suggest that Obama needs to take more definitive and consistent stances on policy issues because the "two-step" strategy will have clear limitations. Dionne's analysis shows that scrutiny and support for a politician are not mutually inconsistent concepts. Perhaps other members of the media will soon discover this fact as well.

Selective Memory Alert: Forbes Article Blames Obama for North Korea's Recent Missile Launch

In a stunning defiance of history, Bahukutumbi Raman, the Director of the Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai, India, blames President Obama for North Korea's recent missile testing. In an article published in Forbes, Raman makes the following observation:

The defiant action of North Korea in testing a long-range missile with military applications last month, and its latest act of defiance in reportedly carrying out an underground nuclear test on May 25, can be attributed--at least partly, if not fully--to its conviction that it will have nothing to fear from the Obama administration for its acts of defiance.

Although Raman concedes that North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test in 2006, he nevertheless argues that:

After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea's policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.

Raman also complains that Obama, like President Carter, could create an image of the United States as "soft and confused" on foreign policy. Raman, however, fails to disclose the fact that North Korea's "missile program" began and grew substantially during the 1980s and 1990s, while presumably "tough and coherent" Republicans and a Democrat occupied the White House.

North Korea began flaunting its missile power long before Obama's presidency. In 2002, President Bush made his infamous speech that placed North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, on a list of nations constituting an "axis of evil." The next year, North Korea became the first country ever to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea previously announced its intent to withdraw from the pact during the Clinton administration, but shifted course following international diplomacy and pressure from nations, including the United States.

In 2006, four years after Bush's axis of evil declaration and after years of "strong" warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, North Korea tested a nuclear missile, provoking international outrage. That same year, Iran defied international pressure and stated that it would resume its uranium enrichment program and that it would discontinue voluntary measures that gave international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities.

Now, in 2009, North Korea has conducted additional missile testing. According to Raman this likely would not have happened if Obama were not soft on foreign policy and national security. Raman's argument, however, seems very "weak" on history and strong on partisanship.

Obama on National Security: I Am Doing the Right Things; I Have Not Broken Campaign Promises

[Update: Even the mainstream media have begun to make similar arguments that I make in this essay regarding the Supreme Court and Obama's national security decisions. Also, thanks to TalkLeft for initiating a thread on the issue (and graciously linking to this post).]

Obama made an interesting speech today. To summarize, Obama basically said he is doing the right things regarding national security, despite the difficulties, and that he has not abandoned any of his campaign promises. Nuance is key to understanding these promises, I suppose. For those of you who do not trust my sarcastic summary, here is the long version of the President's speech: Obama Speech Transcript.

More of the Same?
Throughout the Democratic primaries, the progressive wing of the party said that Obama was extraordinarily liberal, while Hillary Clinton offered "more of the same" (as Bush). But when Obama embraces "preventive detention," this sounds the same as Bush's maligned practice of "indefinite detention." Obama wants to detain dangerous individuals consistent with the "rule of law," but Bush did the same thing, although he called detainees "enemy combatants." "Enemy combatants" sound "dangerous" to me.

Obama has opted to utilize "kinder, gentler" military tribunals, but, like the Bush version, they will operate under a watered-down version of due process in order to secure easier convictions. As a compromise, Obama could have chosen to follow the stricter procedures contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- which govern the prosecution of military personnel for crimes ranging from sodomy to treason. Instead, he has chosen to "stay the course" with slight modifications.

Obama reports that he will reform Bush's tribunals by giving defendants greater freedom to pick their own lawyers and by requiring the government to demonstrate the reliability of hearsay evidence. These reforms, however, will unlikely represent a substantial departure from practices during the Bush administration. Military courts receive so much criticism in part because one entity serves as police, prosecutor, judge, and jury. So, even if Obama changes the hearsay rule, the military (as judge) will still decide whether the military (as prosecutor) can introduce hearsay evidence collected by the military or the CIA (as police officer) for use in a military proceeding (a criminal prosecution). Focusing only on the promise to reform the hearsay rule and not the process for evaluating its reliability is a mere distraction.

Supreme Court Implications
Civil liberties organizations have already promised to file lawsuits challenging the military courts. In two different rulings, the Supreme Court invalidated the procedures used in Bush's military tribunals. Potentially, the Court could rule against Obama's courts, especially if he chooses a "true" liberal to replace Justice Souter.

I suspect that for this and other reasons, Obama will aim for the middle and for familiarity. This standard works against Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whom people have labeled as a leftist without reading her opinions) and Professor Pam Karlan (who is a bona fide leftist).

Elena Kagan, however, is probably the presumptive front runner. She is the most moderate of the individuals on the reported short list. More importantly, Kagan has already embraced the expansive notion of indefinite (sorry: "preventive") detention that Obama says he will utilize. Furthermore, she is a known quantity to President Obama, and he undoubtedly asked her many questions about law and national security before selecting her to become the Solicitor General. Also, after Souter announced his retirement, several leading Democrats floated a script that discouraged the selection of a sitting judge. Kagan is the the most popular front runner who is not a judge. Although this analysis sounds logical, I will decline to make a formal prediction. There are clearly many factors at stake.

Final Thoughts
Ironically, Obama, who ran as the antiwar candidate, is now the "war" president. He is the commander-in-chief in two ongoing offenses, including one in which he has authorized a "surge." As proof that his antiwar rhetoric is a distant memory, Obama has delivered a speech to justify his Bush-esque national security policy against liberal (and Cheney's) criticism in a building that houses the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which rank among the most enduring of American symbols. This is a long road from the flag pin controversy.

Finally, I will leave readers with some "oldies but goodies" from Dissenting Justice. These articles argue that the Left set itself up for disappointment with its irrational exuberance surrounding Obama. He is, as Reverend Wright accurately stated during the campaign, a politician. All presidents before him were politicians as well. I was stunned that liberals refused to see this. So, to the formerly effusive and uncritical Left: I told you so. To everyone else, enjoy the articles.

Latest analysis on Dissenting Justice:

Cutting Through the Rhetoric Regarding Hate Crimes Legislation


Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

* 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

* Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

* Head Explosion at The Nation: Left "Duped" by Its "Own Wishful Thinking"

* From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

* Warning to Progressives: NYT Proclaims Obama Will Govern From Center-Right

* Leftists Finally Realize Obama Is a Moderate; Huffington Post Suddenly Embraces Clinton and Political Center

* The "Left" Responds to Obama's "Centrist" Foreign Policy Team

* Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

* Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet

* Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath