Nicker on 25/11/2010 at 01:56
Of the two styles pictured, I like the "Prepped For Electro-convulsive Therapy" look best.
The difference between Soviet controlled Germany and NK, is that the madness in NK had been in place for several generations. There is a huge demographic who have known no other reality tunnel than Kim's paranoid play-house.
It never ceases to amaze and depress me how frequently in our history, a single, psychotic individual has been able to achieve power and abuse it, unopposed. Mind you, the tendency of our electoral systems to filter for extreme Type A++ personalities, isn't a great improvement on your garden variety dictatorship sometimes.
demagogue on 25/11/2010 at 03:44
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
At this point, I'd be inclined to say that the cheapest solution would be to cut off all aid, and set up relevant embargoes.
You can't cut off humanitarian aid because it only hurts the people, and embargoes on industrial goods can only go so far if China is still supplying them. Then you have the issue that they still have a nuclear weapons program and periodically fire ballistic missiles over S. Korea and Japan, so you don't want to just lock them up and throw away the key and loose all your chips in dealing with that.
But, third, the essence of your point IMO basically comes down to a policy of prejudiced neglect. As long as they aren't risking any real regional instability, basically ignore them and let them rot, maybe have a few diplomatic gestures to keep an eye on their nuclear program and "officially" talk about hope for the future. But as a practical matter you don't have any real hope and it's just a game of charades and everybody knows it.
In fact, this is pretty much exactly what the West's policy has been to N. Korea (and Cuba, and Iran to a point) for a long time. It was only with the recent Iraq adventures that some rash Americans missed the point that just because you
say it doesn't mean you actually have to
mean it.
Swiss Mercenary on 25/11/2010 at 03:55
Quote Posted by demagogue
You can't cut off humanitarian aid because it only hurts the people,
Actually, yes, you can. It's extortion, and it only enables their leaders to hold on to power. It's also what enables them to have a military consisting of some 47% of their population.
Quote:
and embargoes on industrial goods can only go so far if China is still supplying them.
If China wants to feed them, that's their prerogative.
Quote:
Then you have the issue that they still have a nuclear weapons program and periodically fire ballistic missiles over S. Korea and Japan, so you don't want to just lock them up and throw away the key and loose all your chips in dealing with that.
We don't have any chips. We feed them, they respond with threats. It doesn't get us anywhere.
Quote:
But, third, the essence of your point IMO basically comes down to a policy of prejudiced neglect. As long as they aren't risking any real regional instability, basically ignore them and let them rot, maybe have a few diplomatic gestures to keep an eye on their nuclear program and "officially" talk about hope for the future. But as a practical matter you don't have any real hope and it's just a game of charades and everybody knows it.
Thing is, unlike Iraq, and Cuba, this isn't a country that can support itself, not with its defense budget and the lifestyle of their leadership. There's no meaningful diplomatic headway that could be made with continued aid, and there hasn't been for decades.
demagogue on 25/11/2010 at 05:09
The lesson of history is that famine strengthens Communist power, and withholding humanitarian aid as a political tool is not just ineffective, but actually counterproductive and only empowers the regime. (Not to say that there aren't better and worse ways to handle aid to rogue regimes). (
http://nutrition.tufts.edu/docs/pdf/famine/nkorea.pdf) Cite. All this is putting aside the morally suspect foundation that you're fucking over innocent civilians to make a pointless political gesture to a tyrant that cares even less about the survival of his own people than you do, and who has more reason to thank you for the help than protest.
Quote:
It doesn't get us anywhere.
As I understand it, the humanitarian aid doesn't really have any bearing on the nuclear issue one way or another. (Except to the extent stopping humanitarian aid empowers the regime.) We do have to go through the charade of engagement because of their weapons program. One could argue we might have chips to the extent N. Korea does need things which can twist their arm on their weapons program in some circumstances (like oil). I'm not sure. But even if we did, humanitarian aid isn't one of them.
Quote:
There's no meaningful diplomatic headway that could be made with continued aid, and there hasn't been for decades.
By the same token, this seems to assume that dropping aid and fucking over the civilian population has any bearing on diplomacy one way or another (experience says it doesn't). The point of being a decent human being to starving people isn't to make "diplomatic headway" to people that don't give a shit; it's because decent humans with an atomic shred of moral scruple give food to starving people. (Anyway it shouldn't be political; but it is in practice. Almost all hum. aid is regularly politicized).
As for what does make diplomatic headway, as I said before the dominant policy is prejudiced neglect; let them rot, forget about headway. Go through the pointless charade as we've been doing successfully for decades, as you yourself admitted in the sentence I just quoted. Why change what isn't broke? If we can keep an eye on their nuclear weapons program with a little squeezing with what NK does care about (oil), all the better. But none of this has anything to do with humanitarian aid.
Edit: BTW, I did notice that S. Korea suspended aid. But I understood the reasoning behind that was more like: "why should we bear the cost of helping your peoples' well-being when you are actively killing our own people?" than to expect any political leverage out of it. I don't like that either (two wrongs don't make a right), and it's punishing the wrong people, but it's a little more understandable on a moral level.
Martin Karne on 25/11/2010 at 05:25
Center Korea is ready for action!
:sweat:
CCCToad on 25/11/2010 at 05:33
Quote:
You can't cut off humanitarian aid because it only hurts the people, and embargoes on industrial goods can only go so far if China is still supplying them. Then you have the issue that they still have a nuclear weapons program and periodically fire ballistic missiles over S. Korea and Japan, so you don't want to just lock them up and throw away the key and loose all your chips in dealing with that.
Which is why removing aid is ineffective. If North Korea was standing on its own, removing aid might help tip them over, but with China supporting them North Korea continues to be exist.
To borrow a phrase form Fareed Zakaria, North Korea (like almost every socialist nation ends up becomign) exists as a family business for the head of state. In this case, their only viable export is nuclear technology.
Koki on 25/11/2010 at 06:57
Quote Posted by 242
I know. Absolute majority sincerely believe in what they have been taught.
Oh well, if
you know, then I guess that's that.
242 on 25/11/2010 at 12:40
Quote Posted by Koki
Oh well, if
you know, then I guess that's that.
I know because I also sincerely believed as well as everybody else around me.
Kolya on 25/11/2010 at 14:41
So where you from, comrade?
Koki on 25/11/2010 at 14:47
You never listened to Radio Free Europe?
