Journalists freed from North Korea

Free at last! But at what cost?

Did the two reporters did not know what they were doing when they went illegally into North Korea to report for Current TV? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Did not Al Gore take a calculated risk in sending his reporters to North Korea? If they had succeeded in taking footage of reclusive North Korea, Gore's channel would have made a ton of money. Instead, they got caught and got imprisoned. Isn't that a "business loss"? If banks take risks and lose, we unload heaps of scorn on them. But when another business (Current TV/Al Gore) takes risk and loses, we sympathize!

Al Gore benefited because he can now boast that he can get his reporters to undertake risky ventures because he has the ability to get them freed if they run into hot waters.

President Obama was benefited because he now has one less international issue to face.

Even North Korean leadership benefited - Kim Jong Il was able to get much needed international attention and recognition for which he so desperately craves, and was able to demonstrate the "magnanimity" of North Korea's "Dear Leader" by the Presidential Pardon.

But what about the US? It lost face in the international community; it had to climb down from its strict rhetoric of "there will be consequences". Far from punishing a small, rogue state, the mighty US sent its former President to secure a "pardon" for its journalists. While it has exposed the US to ridicule, it also has reduced the effectiveness of the Office of the Secretary of State. Predictably, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to go to Africa and not being around when the series of events unfolded.

If President Clinton went to North Korea in his private capacity, then it was imperative on the White House to declare that the Administration is not involved in negotiation, other than ensuring the safely of the former President. Since that did not happen, it gives a more official flavor to the entire episode.

And what about the people of North Korea? If Kim Jong Il is a dictator who has caused countless sufferings and millions of deaths in North Korea, by giving legitimacy, recognition and international attention to his regime, propping it up (and thereby helping him to stick to power longer), President Clinton has done a huge disservice to the people of North Korea and history will judge him in that context.

Oh well, nearly everyone benefited except the US. But then who was representing the US interests anyway?