North Korea: 2012-2016

[Ken White]

I'm talking specifically about historical apologies. The presidential visit is nice pomp, but it only comes on top of some kind of major policy change.

Or it could be in itself the announcement of a policy change...

However, I believe there is a problem with your solution.

It is not that I and my generation who fought in Korea strongly doubt that we have anything -- that's a specific AND an all inclusive we plus a very inclusive anything -- to apologize for; we're old, departing this mortal coil on a daily basis and have no political clout so our opinion is basically immaterial. So forget us.

The US Congress is another matter entirely.

Regardless of which party the President who broached the idea of an apology might belong to, the other party would have a field day with the concept.

I believe Madeleine Albright apologized to Iran for overthrowing the Shaw in 1953(?) or so. Apologies have a particular resonance in North Korea, where as you will remember we managed to get away with apologizing for the intrusion of the USS Pueblo on paper while simultaneously denouncing that same agreement verbally. Apologies have greased many diplomatic wheels here, unlike with Iran, as far as I know.

Since I remember drawing cold weather gear in preparation for deployment from Fort Bragg to Korea, yes, I recall the Pueblo 'apology' quite well.

I suspect however, that an apology for a war gets into far shakier ideological and legal territory. If one apologizes, does one then owe reparations? If, so in what amount? Regardless of the legalities, what of world opinion (which I don't give a fig about but which worries some)? Do many in Congress subscribe to a belief that we owe North Korea an apology given the practical fact that they invaded the South weighed against the unprovable assertion that if only we'd done the Cold War differently, it might not have happened?

So, I see your point, don't disagree it might work. Might. Barely might. The problems with it would, I believe, be US domestic and would be legal-type practical as well as ideological. So I suspect a Presidential risk analysis would come to the same conclusion and the idea would be rejected unless there were very positive signs that the potential benefit to the US would out weigh the costs. I doubt such signs will appear anytime soon.

Note also that doesn't even address Chinese (They had more people killed in Korea than did the North Korean Army) concerns. Will they alos want /get an apology? Nor South Korean and Japanese concerns. Or the UN, who underwrote that war -- or the Brits and Australians and other who fought there...

As for Madeline apologizing to Iran, she did indeed -- and I acknowledge that as you note, Iran and North Korea are different. Your idea of the President doing it would resonate with North Korea -- as would an apology from Clinton instead of his female SecState have resonated with Iran, in the event it was a meaningless gesture form one of the worst secretaries of state seen in my long life. She ties with Alexander Haig for loser of the 20th Century.

My personal belief is that both nations would take a Presidential apology, use it to their benefit in various ways and modify their behavior very little if at all -- probably for the worse if at all. Those currently in power in both nations are not about to give that up. Another generation; perhaps. Maybe a Gorbachev-like person and economic dire straits may align. Until then, I expect little change from either nation. Both are really similar only in two things: wanting 'respect' -- and to keep their quite different power structures in place.