Advertisement

Why Clinton Should Not Visit N. Korea

National Perspective | INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK

November 01, 2000|JIM MANN, Jim Mann's column appears in this space every Wednesday

WASHINGTON — President Clinton is trying to decide whether to undertake something that might be good for him personally, but terrible for America: a hastily planned, lame-duck presidential visit to North Korea.

Clinton already is scheduled to travel to Brunei and Vietnam in two weeks. The question now being weighed at the White House is whether, while in Asia, the president should pay a call on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, who played host to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last week.


Advertisement

This would no doubt be a milestone. No American president has been to North Korea. There might be a new deal on missiles for him to sign. The photo opportunities would be splendid: Clinton might travel by land through the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.

And for Clinton, the benefits would be clear. A big North Korea trip might be an end-of-term addition to his legacy.

If he goes only to Vietnam, the coverage will focus on Clinton himself, since he didn't fight in the Vietnam War. If a North Korea stopover is added, however, Clinton might be able to recast this trip with a larger theme: ending the Cold War in Asia--whatever that means.

But is the trip in the national interest? No, for three reasons.

First and foremost, a presidential trip to North Korea is not the kind of initiative that should be undertaken by a lame-duck president.

When President Nixon went to China, he did it in February of a year when he was running for reelection. He bore political responsibility: If voters didn't like it, they could vote against him. Not so for Clinton in Pyongyang.

If George W. Bush wins the presidency Tuesday, the problems with a Clinton visit are obvious: The Republicans may want different policies for North Korea.

But even if Vice President Al Gore wins, the idea of a lame-duck Clinton trip is a lousy one. It would be Gore who has to deal with North Korea over the next four years, not Clinton. And so Gore should be the one who takes Kim Jong Il's measure and establishes ties with him.

If the new president (Bush or Gore) stops in North Korea as part of his first trip to Asia--along with visiting Japan, China and South Korea--at least it will remind Kim Jong Il that he is not the center of the universe. A Clinton visit so soon after Albright's would further inflate the North Korean leader's self-importance.

Los Angeles Times Articles
|