Clinton and Kim: cui bono?

By Paul Afshar

There are few partnerships over the past decade which have been completely unexpected. Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown. James Purnell and Jon Cruddas. And now there’s Bill Clinton and Kim Jong-il.

In fairness, the former US President and the de facto Leader of North Korea could hardly be described as partners; theirs was a marriage of convenience.

This week’s scenes of two American journalists reunited with their families after being held captive in the Communist state were heart warming. And Clinton must take credit for this. But what is the fallout of Bill Clinton’s extraordinary intervention and how will it affect international relations with North Korea?

The fact that the lives – or at least livelihoods – of two young women have been potentially saved cannot be denied.

Personal interventions by former heads of state on this scale are not unprecedented and not without previous success. In 1990 former Prime Minister Ted Heath flew to Baghdad to negotiate the freedom of 33 British hostages detained on a commercial flight by the Iraqi regime during the Kuwait war. And former American President Carter was an early adopter of the elder statesman status when in 1981 he helped negotiate the freedom of 52 American hostages held from the US Embassy in Tehran for over a year.

What is clear in both of these cases was that these interventions did not necessarily precipitate an improvement in diplomatic relations between the countries involved. Britain has been to war with Iraq on more than one occasion since and US-Iranian relations, some argue, have never recovered.

Without wanting to invoke the image of Kim Jong-il conjured by the creators of Team America: World Police, Clinton’s visit may have in some small way bolstered the credibility of the ageing leader. It is telling that in their first photocall, Clinton’s face was a sombre, serious reflection of the situation. Jong-il wore a beaming smile, and will use the glittering images of him and the former US President to boost his domestic appeal.

At the same time this has to be seen as a positive for the Obama administration. No, Obama didn’t personally negotiate the freedom, but as US President he can hardly be blamed for not personally flying out. What Obama has done, in effect, is begun to fulfil one of his campaign pledges to negotiate with ‘difficult’ regimes – an open hand to an unclenched first.

The situation does throw up some interesting challenges for the UK. Should John Major personally intervene when British hostages are captured in Iraq? Or does this send a signal that hostile regimes and groups will be greeted with high level access as a consequence of their actions?

One thing is certain. Kim Jong-il and the North Korean regime are deaf to international threats. The “Dear Leader’s” personal quest for military aggrandisement and nuclear ambition will, in all likeliness, not be halted by these minor diplomatic ripples.

Yet if the beginning of America’s open hand strategy with North Korea has ended a serious hostage situation, it has had one early, dramatic and unexpected success.

Related posts:

1. The UN must respond to North Korea with action and not words