Commentary

Guilty by omission

By Chris Gelken

What you don’t say is often as equally important as what you do say. Why certain things are left out of a statement or a story can often be put down to innocent omission, ignorance, time or space constraints (in the case of a newspaper) – or deliberate omission. And that makes it an unforgivable attempt to mislead.

For example: “The Agreed Framework deal eventually collapsed in late 2002 after Washington accused the communist regime of continuing with its nuclear development activity. Pyongyang later confirmed that it had in fact fired up its Yongbyon facility in contravention of the 1994 agreement.” True and factual in every respect.

The above paragraph has been reproduced in various forms many times in official statements, print and broadcast news over the past few years. The impression it imparts, however, is that North Korea unilaterally fractured the Agreed Framework. This fits very nicely with the concept of good versus evil, and the accepted perception that North Korea is a rogue regime that simply can’t be trusted to keep its word.

I am not suggesting for one second that North Korea isn’t governed by a rogue regime and can be trusted, but the addition of one extra sentence to the paragraph in question changes the entire dynamic of the statement.

“The North said it had grown frustrated at the slow pace at which Washington was implementing the agreement, accusing the U.S. government of dragging its heels on the construction of light water reactors and the delivery of promised oil supplies for much needed energy generation.” Also true and factual in every respect.

Unfortunately, this clouds the issue. Perhaps the North did have a genuine gripe? The Republican led congress (which came into power shortly after the agreement was signed) and later President George W. Bush harshly criticized the deal, saying it rewarded Pyongyang for bad behavior. So yes, they were dragging their heels on raising funds for the construction of promised light water reactors, and Congress often did not provide enough money to sustain the oil shipments. So, who broke the agreement first? Or at least, who broke the spirit of the agreement?

Once a few extra details are thrown into the mix it makes things terribly complicated.

The six-party talks resumed last December after a 13-month hiatus after Pyongyang boycotted the process. The “why” they boycotted the process is often left out, and when it is included, it is usually limited to something like “Pyongyang walked out in protest over U.S. financial sanctions imposed for money laundering, counterfeiting and other illicit financial activity.”

The crucial word “alleged” is rarely used, and to date no concrete and irrefutable proof has ever been presented to substantiate the claims made by Washington. So imagine this scenario; you, dear reader, are being punished and castigated by the international media for crimes you are only “alleged” to have committed. What would your reaction be?

When the talks reconvened last december, the North read out a shopping list of demands, first and foremost was a lifting of the financial sanctions and the release of some $24 million frozen in the accounts of a Macau based bank. The talks got nowhere. The North was accused of being intransigent and was universally blamed for blocking any progress in the talks that wound up with everyone making surly remarks and muttering threats.

The U.S. said the financial sanctions were a separate issue – in their words “a law enforcement issue” – and totally unrelated to the denuclearization talks. Not to North Korea it isn’t. They are upset, and angry. The timing of the economic sanctions, coming as they did just as Pyongyang and its six-party partners had reached a hard fought for agreement on the nuclear issue, leaves one with the suspicion – a suspicion widely held but vehemently denied – that Washington deliberately sabotaged the so-called September Agreement.

Conspiracy theorists suggest, among other things, that Washington needs North Korea as a bogeyman to justify its hugely expensive missile defense shield. Sounds plausible enough.

North Korea might be everything its critics claim it is, and more. It is certainly and verifiably guilty of human rights abuses, for example. But is it solely responsible for the nuclear crisis? Was it pushed to the precipice, or was it always their intention to go there?

In truth, perhaps a bit of both.  

By the same token, the United States may be playing the same nefarious games it did during the decades of the Cold War. Who knows? But we would certainly be making progress if we kept to the facts, all of them.

And the facts this week are; there is an opportunity for compromise in the talks on financial sanctions between Washington and Pyongyang currently underway in Beijing. As Washington repeatedly points out, we are not talking about a huge sum of money – at least not in the bigger scheme of things. So a small gesture here might go a long way to setting the stage for a more productive meeting when the six-party negotiations reconvene next week.

 (chrisgelken@heraldm.com)