Should we feed North Korea?

So, here's the dilemma, stated nicely in a recent Washington Post article:

Inasmuch as I can tell, North Korea makes promises it doesn't intend to keep, regarding its nuclear program in order to get some sort of aid from the rest of the world, at least since the Clinton administration.

All that I have read about the country seems to indicate that the leadership doesn't care about feeding its own people, or, at least, is willing to sacrifice food production for military spending. This would normally negate the social contract between the people and the government, however, through a combination of foreign aid and fierce oppression, it seems like the Kim government has persisted much longer than it should have. Foreign aid inadvertently subsidizes military spending, by allowing the government to divert resources from agriculture.

Then, the moral question: should we cut foreign aid to achieve our nonproliferation goals with North Korea? On the one hand, cutting food aid to the country will surely result in many deaths---for example, in the mid 1990's as many as 3 million people died (although this number is disputed, see source below) because the country couldn't produce enough food, due in part to floods, and in part to having to pay a fair market price for food. Currently it widely believed that the North Koreans are again on the brink of famine. On the other hand, of course, is that a de-nuclearized Korean peninsula seems to benefit everyone in the region, as well as those outside the region. More beneficial would be regime change, brought about by North Koreans themselves. Presumably this would be expedited if we cut foreign aid, which would (in turn) result in a large human casualty.


sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111801532_pf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The UN sanctioned Iraq to death through efforts of the US administration and it brought nothing but increased misery for the local population but it didn't affect the hold of Saddam. This idea that if you impoverish a people that they are more likely to revolt does not work in all situations. The formula for social liberation is not so simple.

The US does not have to offer aid to N. Korea but with the way aid works as an institution of world politics, it will be given 'in the name of' development.

Its interesting to note that N. Korea, which has been starving its population for a very long time now, didn't seem to hold the world's attentions until it was named in the US State of the Union address as part of the access of evil. They named Afghanistan, Iraq and out of nowhere N. Korea. They watched as the US and NATO went into Afghanistan and then Iraq and I guess they felt that some prevention methods might just help curtail another military event. They were right, we now walk gingerly around them.

The larger population of N. Korea starves because the government is corrupt, this is not the first time the world (UN) has had to deal with this situation. Truth is short of brute force or crippling sanctions that never seem to topple governments there is no way of dealing with a closed government save through negotiation. You negotiate until access to financial security and wealth becomes more fashionable than outright rule. As has been discovered you can actually become more powerful by allowing a measured show of economic growth for the masses. If you don't alienate people from the game and they do not feel threatened you can actually yield better results than simply harping over their nukes.

N. Korea isn't a problem unless we make them one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the blockade against Cuba should be removed first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would agree with you there.

 

So you don't care about nonproliferation?

 

North Korea gets food = no nuclear war
North Korea does not get food = nuclear war
---
Look at how South Koreans are etching over North Koreans, with the ships bombardment

link: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...blame-after-ships-exchange-fire--summary.html

you want peace? well pay for it, its better than deaths. Or USA has more money for yet another war?

 

I think 2-5 million NK starved in the 90s famine?

I don't want to starve anyone but perhaps in this case it's an option to be tried? I mean, what else is going to get the people of NK to turn on their oppressors? They now know China is doing really well because they can see the cities springing up next door. With new technology they now know that SK is rich. I say we keep beaming TV into NK talking about how good life would be if they only got rid of Kim. Keep trying to buy off members of the elite.

Either that or leave the whole mess to China and SK?

Iraq had a LOT of illicit oil sales (even to AU) to maintain their regime, it was all a scam - - oil is something NK doesn't have.

 

Using nuclear weapons, for the North Koreans, is a no-win proposal. If they use nuclear weapons on, say, US troop installations in South Korea, they would risk an all-out war with the US which they really have little chance of winning.

Second, I don't know what etching means. The boarders between North and South Korean waters are poorly defined in the yellow sea, and such conflicts are relatively common. Either way, I can't see what that has to do with anything.

Finally, your last comments are pretty useless. Your point seems to be that we should placate the North Koreans by just giving in to their food demands. But, as the saying goes, what's in it for us? The aim of food aid is to get the North to give up their nuclear weapons which threaten the safety of the South Koreans, and other nations in the region (Japan and China. Should we just be blackmailed by the dictator in North Korea? And what other assurances do we have that he won't, say, sell nuclear weapons to other enemies of the west?

 

We make the mistake of thinking that its anything more than a diversion. You can imagine that N. Korea has enough to make some small scale disaster but what you cannot imagine is that N. Korea, or Iran for example, is simply using Nukes as leverage, as a negotiation tool because in certain areas where there is no natural defense and because the West would have enough to obliterate them. Afghanistan doesn't need these kind of defenses. Korea does.

It's a matter of political and military prestige. Why would other countries not want to have it?

 

I think it's actually very clear that North Korea is using the nukes for leverage. That's not really a question, and I don't really have any trouble imagining that.

The point is that the West's (and China's, and Russia's, and South Korea's) goal is a de-nuclearized Korean Principle. How can we achieve that by continuing to kowtow to the North's demands of food aid, with no concessions on their part?

You mean like the other countries (including Iran) which signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

 

Do you guarantee that for us and the world, Lucy?

And what if you're wrong and they attack South Korea and/or Japan?

It's easy to make pronouncements of innocence, but ....what if...?

Baron Max

 

I think that's their problem. They can feed N Korea.

 

South Korea can't feed all of North Korea. The south has their own problems with food supply and distribution ...sure as hell can't take on the whole fuckin' North Korean population!

C'mon, guys, get real,

Baron Max

 

which is why I said 'they'. S Korea and Japan. Hell, China should help out as well.

 

Orly, all of those countries together couldn't feed North Korea!!! Japan is doing the best, but she's having problems feeding her own people. China? Geez, Orly, chinese people are dying by the gazillions of starvation even as we speak.

Baron Max

 

I don't believe that.

 

North Korea gets about 45% of its food from China. (Council on Foreign Relations Report).

I don't know that the Chinese are ``dying by the gazillions'', and presumably a large portion of food aid would come from America where we pay farmers not to produce food. Even so, it seems the South Koreans have the resources to actually give a non-trivial amount of aid: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/asia/27korea.html. See also here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7949785.stm

There is, of course, also the issue of the food actually getting to the people it's intended for. There seems to be a large amount of the aid which is diverted by corrupt officials, including a large portion to the military (source):

So, then, not only is food aid NOT getting to those who need it, it is actually going directly to the military.

 

Do we have any real confidence that cutting food aid to NK would advance nonproliferation goals? Suppose China steps in to provide food, in order to prevent the collapse of the NK state and associated turmoil, flood of refugees, etc. Or perhaps Kim plays nuclear blackmail with Japan and SK in order to demand a resumption of food aid. Either way, we diminish our standing and leverage without achieving anything.

What's the scenario where this works out?

Sure.

More beneficial to whom? Certainly not China; it's pretty clear that they will not countenance the collapse of the North Korean state to achieve denuclearization of the penninsula.

It might not even be beneficial to the US, overall, since a presumably-reuinified Korea would deprive China of its buffer between Japan/SK/USA and so require a significant realignment of the northeast Asian security structure.

And even ignoring all that, state collapse is neither a terribly reliable nor desirable way of denuclearizing a country. In the first place, there's the serious possibility of nuclear materials and technology getting "misplaced" in the chaos surrounding regime collapse. And in the second place, who's to say that the incoming regime wouldn't want to hold on to the nukes?

Would it? We can be pretty certain that China will not countenance the collapse of North Korea, and so would step in to prop up the Kim family regime with food aid.

Moreover, the regime has a serious capacity for repression and control, and has already weathered one famine (with some external aid, to be sure, but a famine nonetheless). We can be assured that they have been thinking about this question for many years now, and so cannot assume that the regime is so brittle that a loss of aid would lead to imminent collapse.

 

I say we send in Clint Eastwood and get him to ask Kim Jung Ill if he feeels lucky and to go ahead and make his day. That is my thought as well as we should just let them starve.

 

I agree, China needs to solve the N korea problem. It's a good test for this soon to be super power.