One Free Korea OneFreeKorea freekorea.us home faq about news blogs plan-b camps interviews google earth

Chris Hill Busted Again

[Update 1 Jul 08:  According to a reader tip, the day after I published this post and the photos below, a State Department desk officer contacted Mrs. Kim through supporters to talk about her letter.  So Chris Hill can’t tell this particular lie again, but he’s still going to do what he wants to do.  The next lie, I suspect, will be delivered directly to Mrs. Kim.  It will consist of unenforceable promises to account, eventually, for the fate of her husband … long after the North Koreans have what they want from us.  At what point does a character flaw become a clinical diagnosis?  I’d bet a psychological profile of Chris Hill would make for fascinating reading.

You will recall that last week, I posted about a letter from Esther Kim, the widow of lawful permanent U.S. resident Kim Dong Shik, who was ”disappeared” by the North Koreans in 2000.  Mrs. Kim wrote to U.S. negotiator appeaser Christopher Hill, pleading with him to use his good offices to save her husband (now believed to have been starved to death by his captors).  This month, a Washington Post reporter finally asked Hill about Esther Kim’s letter: 

Kim’s wife said she did not receive a reply. Hill has no memory of receiving her letter, a State Department official said, but would answer it if she re-sent it. 

We are concerned about this case and all the other cases of abductions,” Hill said in a statement. “I have raised repeatedly with North Korea the need to address concerns about the abduction issue, not only with respect to Japan, but other countries as well, including South Korea.” [Washington Post, Glenn Kessler; emphasis mine] 

(In case anyone at State should ever again suggest that they haven’t seen Mrs. Kim’s letter, I posted it online.  This site receives frequent visits from the State Department.)

Shortly after the Washington Post published its story with Hill’s denial, readers started contacting me about it.  Acting on a tip from one of them, I made contact with Professor Yoichi Shimada, who confirmed in unequivocal terms that he personally gave Hill Mrs. Kim’s letter.  I quoted Professor’s contradiction of Hill in my post.  Another reader who read that post contacted me to provide additional information.  It turns out that Prof. Shimada wasn’t the only one who gave Hill Mrs. Kim’s letter that day.  And this time, a Kyodo News Service photographer was present (my deepest thanks to Kyodo for permission to republish them). 

The first two photographs show Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, meeting with Esther Kim, the widow of Kim Dong-Shik, on November 15, 2007.

ros-lehtinen-with-esther-kim.jpg dscn0218.JPG

Also present are the family members of Japanese who were kidnapped by the North Koreans, and who want their loved ones back before North Korea is de-listed as a sponsor of terrorism.  In that meeting, Mrs. Kim gave Rep. Ros-Lehtinen a copy of her letter.  Rep. Ros-Lehtinen told Mrs. Kim that she would present the letter to Assistant Secretary Hill later that day. 

An OFK reader with direct knowledge of the fact confirms that the photographs below show Rep. Ros-Lehtinen meeting with Hill in her office that same day and actually handing Mrs. Kim’s letter to Hill.  That’s the same day Professor Shimada met with Hill and also gave him a copy of Mrs. Kim’s letter.  This is the same letter Hill says he can’t remember receiving.

img_0251.JPG img_0247.JPG img_0248.JPG img_0249.JPG img_0250.JPG

Words that come to mind:  shameless, flagrant, bald-faced.  Does anyone actually believe that all of this just slipped Hill’s mind?  Ros-Lehtinen had previously raised this issue in a March 2007 letter to Hill’s boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Additionally, there is the unresolved kidnapping of the U.S. permanent resident, Reverend Kim Dong-Shik.  A South Korean court has confirmed North Korean official involvement in this kidnapping.  The Illinois Congressional delegation has made its interest over the Reverend Kim crystal clear in a letter sent two years ago to the North Korean UN Ambassador.  The lack of a response, or even an acknowledgement of the letter, is a further cause for Congressional concern.  It is our firm belief that North Korea should remain on the terrorist list until the kidnapping issues with both Japanese citizens and the U.S. permanent resident are resolved and assurances are given regarding any such future acts.  [House Foreign Affairs Committee]

It’s flatly implausible that Hill truly had no memory of receiving Mrs. Kim’s letter.  Just consider the importance to Hill of striking North Korea from the terror list, and what an obstacle North Korea’s recent kidnapping and murder of Kim Dong Shik must have seemed to his obsessive goal.  Consider all of the congressional, international, and (later) media attention this case had attracted.  And if you can bring yourself to believe Hill’s convenient lapse of memory, then you have to concede that Hill was lying when he said that he was concerned about Rev. Kim’s case, despite having forgotten all about it just seven months after receiving an impassioned appeal from his widow. 

The two possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive, either.  I happen to believe that Hill lied about having no memory of Esther Kim’s letter, and about being concerned about Rev. Kim’s fate.  Having previously caught Hill in a demonstrable lie, I no longer afford him a presumption of integrity.  And if Hill wants to prove me wrong, my comments section is open.

It’s remarkable how one letter from one widow has become such a revealing test of the character of two men on whom America may soon invest so much.  One of those men is negotiating a largely unwritten and endlessly flexible deal to disarm the North Koreans in exchange for most of the leverage we could use to conform their behavior to the standards of humanity.  Hill wants us to believe the North Koreans are actually serious about disarming, but at least one other recent visitor to Pyongyang is telling us that the North Koreans say otherwise.  We’ve wagered the security of our nation on the good faith of Kim Jong Il and the veracity of Chris Hill.  How much comfort should that really give us?

The other man to fail this test of character was a freshman senator from Illinois in 2005, when he signed this letter promising to oppose de-listing North Korea as a terror sponsor until the North Koreans answered for Esther Kim’s husband.  It’s unfortunate that the wife and children of Rev. Kim Dong Shik have become early casualties of a “greater good,” the ambitions of Barack Obama.  That’s neither change nor anything we can believe in.

Related:  I find it equally implausibe that Hill’s infamous meeting with the North Koreans in Berlin was “accidental,” or that Hill acted alone to arrange it.  Taken at face value, it would be an example of Hill being gleefully deceptive toward his own superiors, but I have no doubt that Hill’s superiors — at least within the State Department – knew exactly what he was doing there.  Hill is “burdened” with the duty of lying, because we can see how easily it comes to him.

Fred Fry said,

June 30, 2008 @ 7:38 am

I saw a quick interview with him last night during a CNN special on North Korea. I got the impression that this guy is deluded with the possibility of actually making a deal with the North Koreans.

He needs to be replaced with someone who is convinced a deal with the North is impossible. Then let the North do a little real footwork to get around him. The US has learned nothing after decades the same games over and over.

Al;ex Thompson said,

July 4, 2008 @ 5:23 am

What is with all the vitriol towards Chris Hill? Isn’t he a career diplomat, not a political apointee? As I understand it he was ambassador to Poland and was insturmental in getting the Polish to put a full division in Iraq and take command of a Corps made up of international “coalition of the willing” forces. He knows Secretary Rice from when she was in the Bush I NSC and is a favorite of Bush II because of what he did in Poland. He was named ambassador to Korea and then was ASKED by Rice to come back to Washington and be Asst Secretay for Asia and take over the six-party talks and try to make a deal. He left a nice job to take on the task. Why skewer him for doing what he was assigned to do?

US policy is that the six-party talks are designed to get buy-in from the other four (ROK, Japan, China and Russia) in a deal OR by taking the negotiations as far as possible so that it is clear NK doesn’t want to deal iPROVE to the other four that no deal is possible and then get their buy-in on a policy to get tough with NK.

The weakness in the “NK is evil and how can you deal with those lying bastards, let’s change the regime” school of John Bolton diplomacy is that China, Russia and even the ROK will not risk their equities in Northeast Asia with a crisis on the Korean Peninsula unless ALL diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. Look at a map, look at the size of NK relative to China and the ROK, both in polulation and wealth. If they don’t want NK to collapse, it won’t. There is no leverage for regime change without Chinese (especially) and ROK buy-in.

Remember October 2006 and the NK nuclear explosion, and the UN sanctions? Secretary Rice made a round robin trip to Russia and Asia to try to drum up support for a “they’ve blown off a bomb, let’s really get tough now” policy. She was blown off in every capital (except Tokyo) where they told her that the Bush administration had not made a serious attempt to negotiate yet and NK was forced to blow off the bomb to get the US back to the table. (Read the press from that time closely.) Rice came back to Washington and in December 2006 the negotations got serious. Coincidence?

Also, in 2006 the US did an Asian policy review (see Bush’s speech in Singapore in November 2006), with an emphasis on the need/desire for a new security architecture for Northeast Asia to replace the Post-WWII/Cold War structure, the rationale for which is starting to wear thin. The Six-Party talks are seen as a precursor for such a new architecture. In this the US is not alone; Chinese, South Korea and Japanese think tanks all talk about it. In this sense the North Koreans are both a sideshow and a catalyst to something bigger.
So, Hill is now playing out the string with the NKs. He has gotten disablement of Yongbyon, where all NK’s fissile material was produced (for all the hype about HEU in neocon talking points, the US intel community now concludes there wasn’t much to it), records of Yongbyon’s operation (even if there are gaps we know much more now than before — if those documents had been clandestinely obtained by an agent we would consider it a great intelligence coup). And what have we given up in return? Off the terrorism list, off the TWEA list — both reversible. What we got is irreversible.
And now the process goes on. We see what else we can get.

Will NK make a deal? Who knows at this juncture? The regime, though not the population, is indeed evil and will lie to you. But they are not stupid; they know that the further down the negotiation path they go, the more a final refusal may infuriate China and the ROK. So maybe, if the NK regime can get security guarantees that it thinks will prevent the US from using what it calls the “international cooperation system” to “strangle” NK, maybe it will deal. Perhaps the guarantees will be part of the new security architecture. Perhaps NK then opens the door a bit and some “reform” economic vitality begins to better the life of the average North Korean and gets him out a bit from under the oppressive collectivist/police state. And when Kim Jong Il dies and a collective military leadership takes over maybe it begins full scale reform on the model of China and Vietnam.

Or, maybe Kim Jong Il thinks he is pulling a fast one and strings things out and refuses to give up his nukes in the end. Good, then a joint Chinese, ROK, US, Russian and Japanese policy of really strangling the NK regime has a chance of being stomached in the respective capitals, both because of the danger of a nuclear NK and because NK has stiffed them to their face.

I make three points:

1) Hill is a professional diplomat; an analog would be a military officer. They serve as non-political experts implementing a policy approved by the President. They design the tactics for carrying out that policy to the best of their experience and expertise. Hill is to North Korea as General Petraeus is to Iraq. Ad hominem attacks on Hill by such as your blog are the same as moveon.org calling Petraeus “General Betrayus.” For each of your readers that criticized what moveon.org did but kvetches about Hill, they need to look in the mirror for a hypocracy check.

2) I have read many entries in your blog. I have heard Chris Hill speak a couple of times. Comparing the intellectual firepower displayed in both, I’ll take Hill.

3) What the hell is the Bolton/Cheney policy prescription for North Korea, anyway? Wasn’t NK’s plutonium bottled up when they took office in 2001, with maybe, maybe enough for one or two bombs worth extracted in the 1989 download, assuming the NKs really knew how to reprocess then, and the rest under IAEA safeguard? Didn’t NK cook another 35-50 kg of plutonium in secret AFTER Bolton/Cheney embarked the US on a “growl, talk tough, don’t engage, drink a testosterone tea each morning, but don’t actually do anything except get down on your knees and beg the Chinese to please, please get the NKs to do what we say” policy?

Joshua said,

July 4, 2008 @ 7:46 pm

I have read many entries in your blog. I have heard Chris Hill speak a couple of times. Comparing the intellectual firepower displayed in both, I’ll take Hill.

So obviously, with all that time on your hands to read something so unintelligent, your life isn’t exactly fully booked with love, happiness, fulfillment, professional accomplishment, or intellectual stimulation. And based on #3, you didn’t even comprehend much of what you read here.

A life is a terrible thing to waste, no?

Alex Thompson said,

July 5, 2008 @ 3:14 am

Joshua,

I think your ad hominem attack on me misses my points.

I have read your blog somewhat closely. I just do not understand what your policy prescription — and the Bolton/Cheney policy, which you seem to hold in high regard — toward NK is. How does it achieve the presumed US goals, which are, as far as I know, nonproliferation, reduced tension on the peninsula, and human rights in NK, as well as using the Six-Party Talks and NK nuclear issue as a catalyst for a new Northeast Asian security architecture? As far as I can see, just saying NK is evil and until it de facto surrenders to us it will get no benefits is unrealistic; as psychologically comfortable as it is, it doesn’t get anything done. The fact seems to be that while we engaged NK we got some degree of amelioration of their nuclear program and when we then changed to Bolton/Cheney the NKs went full bore creating fissile material, and testing it (semi-successfully).

When I heard Hill talk his outline of action seemed comprehensive and with a reasonable chance of success, though he did say that the NKs were difficult so who knew what was going to happen. Force the NKs to make their choice, if they deal, fine; if they don’t, let them alienate those that have real leverage over them.

You also didn’t address what is really my central point. Why the ad hominem attack on Hill? He is a professional diplomat carrying out a policy, not of his making, to the best of his ability. If you don’t like the policy attack the man who sits where the buck stops.

Joshua said,

July 5, 2008 @ 9:26 am

Alex,

1. Don’t come here throwing out 2-won insults and then expect status as an aggrieved party when you get the worst of it.

2. Again, sir, reading comprehension. If you’ve read this site at all closely, you’d have seen that I link back to that post frequently. Though as you should realize, I do not speak for Bolton or Cheney.

3. Hill has shown himself to be a habitual liar, and Hill’s credibility is central to any defense of his dealings, since no living person except Kim Jong Il knows what shape they will ever take. So many of the critical terms “agreed” with the North Koreans — or so Hill would have us believe — are either undisclosed, hopelessly vague, or constantly changed by the North Koreans.  Case in point:  the Feb. 13th agreement stipulates the eventual disarmament of “all nuclear programs.  Does that mean nuclear weapons and fissile material?  Hill has repeatedly said it does, and that the North Koreans agree.  Obviously, if you listen to the North Koreans, they’ve been telling us for a year that it does not include weapons or fissile material, and when Hill couldn’t smooth that over, he simply conceded the single most important point in this whole damned disagreed framework.  Honestly, can you even tell me what terms you’re even defending? A year from now, for all you know, he’ll agree to cede Guam and the Aleutian Islands in exchange for them not evicting a Latvian U.N. inspector.

4. You’ve no doubt read Kessler’s reporting on Hill. Hill isn’t just a modest civil servant following orders. This is a strategy he pushed and marketed to POTUS himself, and he’s been willing to lie to us all to save it.

5. Can you defend Hill as to the charge of mendacity, or explain to us why it does not matter?

6. Do you actually believe that the current strategy will disarm Kim Jong Il of so much as one gram of plutonium, or one bomb?

7. Do you really doubt that a year from now, this entire deal will be in shambles on some convenient North Korean pretext, and that they’ll be ready to start up that nearly complete 50-megawatt reactor next to the used-up one?

Won Joon Choe said,

July 5, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

Joshua wrote:

“Hill isn’t just a modest civil servant following orders. This is a strategy he pushed and marketed to POTUS himself, and he’s been willing to lie to us all to save it.”

Bingo. This was what I was going to say in response to Alex before Joshua beat me to it.

I also think Alex crying about “ad hominem” attacks from Joshua is hypocritical, given that he threw mud first. Also as an aside, I too had the (dis-) pleasure of listening to Hill speak at length at the Korea Society here, and I cannot say I was exactly floored by the man’s intellect.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment