Home   Bookmark and Share
 

 

 

 Print Friendly and PDF

North Korea May Negotiate on Nuclear Weapons: The Washington Post Isnít Reporting That

By Jon Schwarz

September 07, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - No normal human being should ever have to read the Washington Postís op-eds and unsigned editorials. But the Postís words have a huge impact on the hive-mind of Americaís foreign policy apparatus ó and hence where weíre going to war next ó so itís important that someone normal pay attention and report back.

So as a quasi-normal person, I recommend you pay close attention to this, from a recent column by the Postís deputy editorial page editor, Jackson Diehl, about North Korea:

[North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un] has shown no interest in talks ó he wonít even set foot in China, his biggest patron. Even if negotiations took place, the current regime has made clear that ďit will never place its self-defensive nuclear deterrence on the negotiating table,Ē as one envoy recently put it. [emphasis added]

Hereís why that matters:

1. While the Postís link is dead, itís meant to take you to this Associated Press story.

This is what the envoy, North Koreaís Deputy UN Ambassador Kim In Ryong, actually said, according to a transcript from North Koreaís UN Mission quoted in the AP article:

ďAs long as the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threat continue [emphasis added], the DPRK, no matter who may say what, will never place its self-defensive nuclear deterrence on the negotiation table or flinch an inch from the road chosen by itself, the road of bolstering up the state nuclear force.Ē

Thereís of course a significant difference between North Korea saying it will never negotiate to halt or eliminate its nuclear weapons program, and that it will never negotiate as long as the U.S. continues to threaten it.

Moreover, many North Korean officials, including Kim himself, have used precisely this formulation over and over again since July 4, when North Korea launched what appeared to be its first genuine intercontinental ballistic missile.

And Diehlís column is by no means the only example of this misrepresentation. As long as North Korean officials have been saying this, the U.S. media has frequently been cutting the qualifier.

Itís also worth noting that Diehl likely knew he was making this important elision. North Koreaís qualifier appears both in the articleís headline and its first paragraph:

Finally, Diehl clearly read North Koreaís statement, since he cut and pasted its language. Itís hard to imagine he didnít consciously or unconsciously decide to leave that crucial part out.

So does North Koreaís current rhetoric mean it would ever agree to halt, roll back, or even eliminate its nuclear weapons program? If they did agree to it, would they follow through? North Korea observers disagree on the likelihood of this.

But it does in fact matter that debates among foreign policy elites in the pages of the Post and elsewhere be based in reality. The reality is that North Korea is saying that, under certain conditions, it will put its nuclear weapons on the table.

2. Jackson Diehlís title obscures his importance at the Postís editorial page.

Itís long been reported that Diehl is a primary force behind the Post editorial pageís drift to constant belligerence on foreign policy Ė which can be seen in its unsigned editorials, the writers chosen to be regular columnists, and its guest op-eds. When Colbert King, one of the few African Americans on the Postís editorial board, decided to step down, he wrote a memo criticizing Diehlís influence.

Unsurprisingly, Diehl was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (although he urged the Bush administration to make its case more on human rights than unconventional weapons). And just as with North Korea today, Diehl made basic factual errors, such as referring to ďthe 1998 expulsion of the inspectorsĒ from Iraq. In reality, the UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq by the UN itself ahead of the U.S. Desert Fox bombing campaign. Iraq then refused to allow the inspectors to return, citing the fact that the inspectors had been used to spy on the Iraqi regime and that Desert Fox was a clear violation of the UN charter.

According to Fred Hiatt, the overall editor of the Postís editorial page, Diehl is ďrigorously honest, and I have never seen him reluctant to engage in an argument to defend his position.Ē Diehl didnít respond to an email asking him why he failed to portray North Koreaís rhetoric accurately.

This article was first published by The Intercept -

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Your Free Daily Newsletter
You can't buy your way onto these pages

 

 

 

 
 

Search Information Clearing House

===

Click Here To Support Information Clearing House

Your support has kept ICH free on the Web since 2002.

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What's your response? -  Scroll down to add / read comments 

 Please read our  Comment Policy before posting -
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
Click here to comment on our Facebook page
 
 

 

  

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Privacy Statement