Obama should appoint Cheney to negotiate with North Korea over hostages

I've been hoping to debate him for some time. This should be a fun debate, regardless of the outcome. I just hope that I can do justice to the topic. ======= Pro's burden in this debate is to show that Vice President Dick Cheney is the best candidate to head a negotiation with North Korea over the imprisonment of two American citizens. My burden is to show that he is not the best candidate. I can win this debate if I offer a more suitable alternative or if I show why Dick Cheney would not be a good candidate for the position. I will briefly summarize Pro's position, then offer my own case. As usual, I reserve the right to offer more arguments later in the debate if it becomes necessary. ------------ Pro believes the speaker to be of more importance than the message. As such, he believes Darth Vader to be the ideal candidate. Since Vader is a fictional character (and thus unavailable) Pro proposes Vice President Cheney (VP Cheney hereafter) as the next best option. The idea being that just by sending VP Cheney will send a chilling message to the North Korean government in the form of a subtle threat. I disagree with Pro's analysis that the messenger is more important than the message. Therefore, I negate, that Obama should appoint Cheney to negotiate with North Korea over the American prisoners. I will offer some reasons below: ------------ THE MESSAGE More important than sending a subtle threat through the choice of a messenger is an effective message that the administration intends to follow through on if the North Korean government fails to comply. There are several economic options available to the U. S. that they need not resort to subtle physical threats. I will outline them below: SANCTIONS The Obama Administration could push for further UN sanctions on North Korea. Whether or not the UN is amenable, the U. S. could enact sanctions of its own. They could also push other trading partners of N. Korea to follow suit. UN FOOD AID The Obama Administration could seek to remove the UN food aid program to North Korea. This would have a very real effect on North Korea and its government. CHINA China holds much sway over N. Korea. Getting China involved in the process would be much more effective than the subtle threat of sending VP Cheney. I agree with Pro's assertion that the issue is narrowly a concern for Americans, but that does not preclude the involvement of China or other nations in the negotiation process. China is especially suited to act as a mediator. AL GORE If we can conclude that the message is indeed more important than the messenger, then Al Gore would be a perfectly suitable alternative (though not the only available one). He is in a unique situation with regards to this issue because the prisoners in question were in N. Korea under his employ. SUBTLE THREATS Anytime someone makes physical threats they should be ready to act upon them. If someone does not follow through on a physical threat then future threats will be taken less seriously and be less effective. Some issues may or may not warrant physical aggression on our part, but this one does not fit into that category. This is not the issue on which to go to war with N. Korea. A diplomatic solution would be ideal, with economic sanctions and the removal of aid being secondary. VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY VP Cheney already had his opportunity to improve relations with N. Korea during the Bush Administration. At this point, his administration's N. Korea policy seems to be a failure given recent provocative action. Since he already failed once in this endeavor, why should the American public trust him again? ======= CONCLUSION The subtle threat of sending Vice President Dick Cheney is unwarranted in the issue at hand. This is especially true because there are more suitable responses such as sanctions (U. S. or U. N. ), removal of aid, or the employ of a powerful mediator. The resolution is negated.