Obama should appoint Cheney to negotiate with North Korea over hostages

The unique benefit of President Obama sending VP Cheney is that it shows American resolve in a way that no other appointment could equal. It shows resolve not only by Cheney's no-nonsense reputation, but by demonstrating Republican and Democratic unity in supporting the President's determination in refusing to allow the standard North Korean duplicity. Whatever the chances of success with any message delivered to North Korea, the chances are improved by having Cheney deliver it. Cheney will be taken more seriously by both the Chinese and the North Koreans than Al Gore or anyone else. No Democrat would demonstrate bipartisan determination, and no person with a dovish reputation would make so bold a statement of intent by the President. Con claims that UN sanctions alone will force North Korea to comply, because they have worked in the past. Pro gives no evidence that sanctions have worked against North Korea. I provided evidence that they did not work. UN sanctions were imposed in 2006 after the first North Korean nuclear test. http://www.cnn.com.... That did not deter the North Koreans from continuing their nuclear program. The UN passed a resolution condemning the current North Korean nuclear test, but no further UN action has materialized. If a nuclear danger cannot inspire UN action, there is no chance whatsoever that seizing American citizens will provoke sanctions. Moreover, while the UN may act to impose some additional sanctions in response to North Korea's nuclear test, there is no chance they would impose sanctions based upon their having taken hostages. In 2004, the North Koreans admitted to having kidnapped 13 Japanese citizens in the period from 1977 through 1983, although the actual total was more likely 70 to 80. A resolution condemning the North Korean action passed in the General Assembly over the opposition of Russia and China. However, no sanctions or other punishment was imposed, and without Chinese and Russian support no Security Council action would be possible. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Japanese citizens were held for more than twenty years. This makes it all the more apparent that seizing American citizens will not provoke UN action. Con claims that Dear Leader cannot renege on a deal to release hostages in return for avoiding sanctions, because once the hostages are released, they cannot be taken back. The error in that thinking is that history shows conclusively that Dear Leader will not agree to that deal in first place. He knows that the UN will never act just to save Americans, and he knows that the policy of China is to provide whatever aid is required for the regime to survive. What North Korea demanded, and received, from the Japanese in return for hostages was money. That is what, according to experts, Dear Leader is likely to demand this time. " 'It seems to me, the question is whether the Obama administration will have something to lay out,' said Niksch [research analyst at the Congressional Research Service]. He recommends 'a big offer of food aid, probably a million tons or more, possibly two million tons', with no strings attached. In other words, the US would have to drop its insistence on seeing who got the aid - the demand that led to the end of 'humanitarian' shipments from the US last year. . . . A large US donation may provide the opening for the bilateral dialogue that North Korea is widely assumed to want with the US - provided the talk focuses on North Korea's basic demands. These include recognition of North Korea as a nuclear state, one of nine members of the global elite of nuclear powers, and removal of the sanctions that the US is determined to impose." http://www.alternet.org... I do not know if Cheney delivering a threat of physical intervention will cause Dear Leader to rethink his policies. It might not. Nonetheless, we ought to give negotiation every chance, and the chances are better with Cheney than with any other envoy. If negotiation fails, then, as Pro agreed, we must follow up with physical action. With Cheney having been sent to underscore the determination of President Obama and Congress, we then have the greatest chance that a relatively minor physical intervention would suffice. The goal is to impress the Chinese with our resolve more than it is to impress Dear Demented Leader. A physical action with Cheney as the precursor is more likely to succeed is that the action would then portend of greater action. with the message delivered by a weak emissary, any action is more likely to be dismissed as an empty gesture. Con makes an odd accusation that I violated debate conduct. I insulted Dear Leader and Al Gore, and probably Vice President Cheney as well--although perhaps he likes the Darth Vader comparison. Insults of third parties is perfectly acceptable in a debate. What is important is that I did not insult Con. Con claims I insulted liberals, and he apparently identifies with liberals, although that did not come up in the debate. In fact I never mentioned liberals in the debate, and I deliberately avoided any such unwarranted generality. There are many liberals who had strong reputations for supporting no-nonsense foreign policies: FDR, Truman, JFK, and Senator Henry Jackson come to mind. If President Truman were around, he would make an excellent envoy to North Korea. Al Gore, however, is not on that list, because his reputation is far too soft. Moreover, I am proposing that Cheney act as subordinate to Obama, in the belief that the generally liberal President Obama would embrace a strong statement with respect to North Korea. The resolution supposes there is no contradiction in Obama being liberal and acting tough with North Korea. Con is straining to take an insult personally when there was none directed at him or intended. This debate is about the probabilities of foreign policy alternatives working. It is not possible to know with certainty. Our goal should be to give the greatest chance possible first to negotiation succeeding, and then if that fails to a relatively minor physical intervention working. Vice President Cheney delivering the message is most likely to achieve those goals. Renewing past failed strategies is unlikely in the extreme to be successful. The resolution is affirmed.