Ambassador Hughes?

I don't think Martin Ulden's blog has ever seen so much activity. I wonder how he will feel when after months of blogging with no comments, Guest bogger form DPRK Peter Hughes turns up and starts a debating chamber. I think the British Ambassador to DPRK pointed out on his second post how he wished to seperate the people from the politics. This, in my opinion, is a legitimate stance. However reading the comment by James I fear he has the wrong end of the stick aswell. I don't think anyone wants to return to gun boat diplomacy and 'grandstanding' ways, prefering brutal action over the art of diplomacy. However if you wish to engage the DPRK's regime 'based on mutual respect and understanding' then you might as well say goodbye to all your values and any freedom you have ever defended. That is why the definition of the people from the state is important, as the ambassdor notes the people are just like everyone else. The British government in the North should help to facilitate NGOs , promote sound domestic policies which will benefit the public, and work towards a favourable representation of Britain to the population. However at the political level we can not engage with the DPRK as an equal partner. Ambassadors and envoys can engage as they see fit, always courteously, often undertanding, but never can we argue that the DPRK's leaders deserve mutual respect. Not only are the regimes value systems the antipathy of our own but they also represent a parasitic and war mongering nation; a threat to Asian economics and stability and international peace. If you will not condemn a regime such as that James, at least privately, then you can not preach any morality publicly. Ambassador Hughes?