Foreign policy is the weakness of the Democrat Party, and so far, with North Korea, all of the reasons why the American voter doesn't trust Democrats on foreign policy are obvious.
It is time to change the pattern.
A lot of hot air is being blown about regarding who is to blame now that North Korea has apparently gone nuclear. Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, and the media doesn't really care, they just want the best sound bite. After reading the various opinions, from
Jimmy Carter in today's New York Times or
John McCain's rant against the Clintons, the facts tell a different story than the one being played out in the media.
US Policy for North Korea has been largely successful for decades, but in the end the policy wasn't perfect.
I'm having a really hard time with the current spin on the North Korea situation, because while I understand both sides are playing to what they see as a political opportunity, it certainly doesn't serve any useful purpose other than petty politics. The reality is, in 1953 the US signed a cease fire with North Korea. The policy as determined by the cease fire, was basically a stalemate between the North and the South, under the umbrella of the United States that gave the region 53 years of peace.
During that time, China has nearly become a superpower. Japan has become an economic juggernaut, and South Korea's economy is ranked 14th in the world by GDP. In other words, as a result of US containment policy, 3 of top 14 world economic powers have emerged despite being neighbors to North Korea, as a direct result of the US policy to maintain peace and stability in the region. Why do Democrats feel compelled to move away from the success of that policy? I think it is easier to defend the long term success of an imperfect policy than to defend the success or failure of any individual aspect of it. Democrats have nothing to be defensive about.
The reality is, the policy was never perfect. That doesn't make containment a bad policy, it just made it an imperfect policy, but suitable given the circumstances of the time. Republican and Democrat presidents over the years have had opportunities to change the status quo in North Korea, but it wasn't done for the sole purpose of maintaining the stability of the region, which was a noble and wise decision. Bill Clinton, George Bush, and every diplomat of their respective era's tried to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. Given North Korea was committed to the path regardless of the efforts of both, their lack of success isn't a result of bad policy, it is a result of choosing the best of bad options within the framework of the policy.... again, a noble and wise decision.
Does anyone honestly think Clinton or Bush didn't try to negotiate? I hope we aren't so naive. The reality is, the strategy was to contain North Korea, and was successful for over half a century until time ran out. Like all imperfect foreign policy, containment had a shelf life, and we have reached the end of its shelf life with North Korea.
So now North Korea has the bomb. Personally speaking, I for one am thankful China, Japan, and South Korea have developed so well economically during the US containment policy of North Korea, because it improves the US position diplomatically now that regional players have as much to lose, if not more, than the US does. The 53 years of stalemate for stability adds to the likelihood a peaceful resolution will ultimately occur, it doesn't detract from it. How exactly is the containment policy a failure?
If you suggest it is a diplomatic failure because North Korea will use or sell the nuclear weapon, then the suggestion that diplomacy was ever going to work doesn't seem realistic to me. If you suggest it is a diplomatic failure because North Korea has the weapon, then you are denying the reality that they have literally starved their own people to death in pursuit of nuclear weapons pouring every resource the country has into the endeavor. With a commitment like that, how exactly was diplomacy going to effect North Korea's nuclear policy?
It wasn't. In the end, even China couldn't stop North Korea, and yet in hubris US diplomats think they could have prevented this, or if we had only sent the right diplomat, the insane dictator would have seen the light. Hubris is the right word, because if North Koreas most important friend China couldn't stop this, how can someone suggest the US could have stopped it considering the US is North Koreas declared arch enemy? Containment was a very good option, and was the US policy for over 5 decades. It was successful, it just wasn't perfect.
Plan B
Now it is time for Plan B. Plan B needs to be the starting point for the Democrat Party policy discussion with North Korea, not the final point of the discussion. History gives every president going back to Eisenhower in 1953 a thumbs up for developing the region despite a military standoff, 50 years was a great run, but that run has ended.
We must start new if we are going to get this right, and the US can't do it alone as a nation. The players in the region, who have thrived under 53 years of the previous successful US policy for stability around North Korea, must step up.
No foreign policy is perfect, and containment while imperfect was and still is a good policy. We know 12 years of containment was working very well in Iraq, had we got another 4 decades out of that imperfect policy I get the impression the US would be doing better in the Middle East than we are right about now.
These attempts to capitalize politically against Republicans on foreign policy events are why Democrats lose credibility on the issue, and the knee jerk blame game style is hurting the party message substance as a whole. In domestic politics, Democrats constantly win because we win the issues. In foreign policy, we shoot ourselves in the foot by ignoring the issues, or turning the issue into a competition against Republicans. This time, the issue isn't Bush, and it isn't Clinton, and niether are a winning discussion point on the issue itself: Thermo-nuclear Weapon Detonation. Any Democrat who can't stay focused on that issue without playing blame game politics with Republicans needs new medication, and any Republican trying to hide behind blaming Democrats needs to be called out for ignoring the issue.
Democrats need to quit getting overly offensive and defensive politically with Foreign Policy issues as a first reaction. The issue isn't about the foreign policy of yesterday for North Korea, it is about the foreign policy of tomorrow with North Korea. If Democrats want to win the North Korean issue, put out a message Americans can believe in even if it is unpopular, because whether we like it or not, right now all options are going to be unpopular, so choose the best of the options and stick to it.
Election season is coming, and while I don't believe foreign policy can win the Democrats the election, I think it can lose the election for us. Time to take a stand on issues.