Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ajosshi]

North Koreans should not pay for sins of the father
by Bloomberg Editorial BLOOMBERG 04:45 AM Mar 26, 2012

United States' policy towards North Korea is crazy - that is, if you believe the old chestnut that insanity means repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Each time the US thinks North Korea has agreed to curtail its nuclear or missile programmes, usually in return for some concession, the North either breaches or skips away from its obligations. Brinksmanship and rupture ensue, followed by a laborious and tentative rapprochement - and then the cycle commences anew.

The latest iteration is the impending collapse of the Feb 29 "Leap Day" agreement, in which North Korea committed to a "moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches and uranium enrichment activity" and the US reaffirmed that it no longer had hostile intent towards Pyongyang and promised to provide 240,000 tonnes of food assistance.

Less than a month later, on March 16, the North announced plans to launch a "satellite" in the middle of next month, provoking outrage and alarm on the part of the US and its allies and a US decision to put the food shipments on hold.



HUMANITARIAN AID

Here's a prediction you can bet your money on: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) will never give up its nuclear or missile programmes. Some other regime might, but not this one. It's got too much pride, prestige and paranoia invested in its arsenal. (Muammar Gaddafi's fall after giving up his nuclear programme has done nothing to convince the DPRK's leaders that their approach is misguided.)

So what do we do?

The world needs to try to promote positive change in North Korea faster than the regime can build up its capacity to wreak havoc. One way to start is to help and engage North Korea's people.

Consider the US decision to put plans for food assistance on hold. Although State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland maintained that there was no "linkage" between the provision of humanitarian aid and North Korea's behaviour, she also said the launch would "abrogate" the agreement.

Huh? That sounds like "linkage" to us - and not particularly humanitarian.

The US smartly designed this food assistance programme to focus on the dietary needs of the malnourished, rather than on grain that the regime could divert. It also insisted that the monthly food deliveries be monitored. Isn't helping the poorest to survive and having monitors on the ground to interact with North Koreans and see what's going on in the interests of the US?

Provided the monitoring programme works as intended - something the US can assess on a month-to-month basis - we think Americans should fulfil their commitment.



DOMESTIC POLITICS

To those who say that the US shouldn't "reward" North Korea's bad behaviour, we say that humanitarian assistance, once you agree to deliver it, is merely that.

President Barack Obama also faces the immediate challenge of forging a unified response to North Korea's camouflaged missile test. Since the launch will commemorate what would have been the 100th birthday of Kim Il Sung, don't look for a Pyongyang climb-down.

Moreover, domestic politics will complicate the picture: Not only is Mr Kim Jong Un's succession march still in formation, but there are elections this year in South Korea, China and, of course, the US.

Last time around, after protests over its April 2009 missile test, North Korea withdrew from talks with the US and its partners and conducted a nuclear test. Mr Obama's trip to South Korea this week for a nuclear security summit offers a canvas for a different narrative.

He could go light on the "shoulder-to-shoulder" rhetoric in favour of a future vision of the Korean peninsula at peace and the healing of Cold War wounds.

The US and its allies could also recognise the DPRK's "right" to launch satellites (and call Pyongyang's bluff) by offering commercial launch services that would not violate previous Security Council resolutions.

And before the launch actually happens, the US could work with China for a measured, and with luck unanimous, United Nations Security Council resolution that expresses global dismay without imposing sanctions.

The world can always return to the game of tit-for-tat if the kinder, gentler approach doesn't work. In the meantime, it avoids giving the DPRK excuses for behaving badly and leaving the negotiating table.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[young_clinton]

In addition to getting North Korea to change its nuclear ambitions, humanitarian aid should be given because people will starve and die without it, which is unacceptable. It's good that they are giving aid that specific to malnourished people. I wonder if they are giving them Plumpy Nut?

[Nowhere Man]

[luckylady]

[cuorev]

[DIsbell]

Just curious, the Sunshine Policy was a failure... how so? Compared to what? I mean in the last few years there's been missile launches, an island shelled resulting in civilian deaths, a warship sunk, nuclear tests...