Saturday, March 3, 2012

“No” to US food aid for North Korea

Recently, the US agreed to provide 240,000 metric tons of food aid to North Korea in exchange for what will surely be a cosmetic and short-lived limitation of its nuclear weapons program.


My impression:

President Obama is making an error of the first magnitude by agreeing to do this.


My proposal:

The US as well as South Korea shouldn’t give any aid whatsoever to North Korea. If China wishes to do so, be my guest. Furthermore, we shouldn’t engage in any kind of “talks” in order to convince/bribe North Korea to reign in its nuke program. We should impose an official code of silence: Whenever Jong blusters, fusses, or fumes, we should say absolutely nothing. Bottom line? Avoid doing or saying anything that will increase Jong’s stature at home or on the international stage.


My sentiments as expressed on Yahoo:

I posted the following responses on Yahoo News, though I insist on restating my belief that Yahoo News routinely censors its contributors’ comments.


My first response:

QUOTE:

This is a bad idea. China could have provided this aid or arranged its financing. As allies and fellow “Communists,” China should have offered this aid without having to be asked. The US only appears to gain, since our gesture at least slows down DPRK’s nuke weapons program. However, the US loses by bowing down to “North Korea’s DEMANDS for food aid.”

The new “Dear Leader” gains immensely by having the running dog capitalists bow down to him, increasing his prestige among his starving people (not to mention, filling their bellies at our expense). Jong can even laugh at us behind closed doors when he visits his peers in China, saying, “The US gave in to nuclear blackmail and we made them pay for it (ha, ha) – with food that could have fed their own citizens.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The inability of the US to think in other than short-term gains is our Achilles’ Heel.”

UNQUOTE:


This, my second post, was in response to a fellow poster’s comment on the above:


QUOTE:

@ Ha! Ha! Ha!,

You say, “Ignoring a dictator is a bad idea?” We ignore them all the time – though mostly the petty ones. You can’t compare all dictators to Hitler, especially not Jong. North Korea, unlike Germany, is boxed in with (really) nowhere to go except south.

Ignoring Jong really was (and still is) the best way to go. In the news today, though, it turns out we chose not to ignore him. Instead, we’re giving him tons of food. Extremely bad move on our part; now he’s got bragging rights. We went from responding to him tit-for-tat (instead of ignoring him and allowing his starving population to deal with him), and now we’re kowtowing.

You are right that Jong Jr. has potential [to do great harm], but that can still be contained if we insist that local players stand up to him – and that includes a nuclear weaponized Japan if needs be. Of course, if we even mention that possibility, China will reign in Jong for us. Problem solved. No Hitler – as if Jong even has a remote chance.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m sure Jong is also thinking of something else: If he starts a war, how sure can he be that one of our surgical strikes won’t take him out, personally?”

:UNQUOTE.


My gut reaction:

First a quote posted on CNN on March 2, then my gut reaction:

QUOTE:


For North Korea, the young Kim Jong Un may want to demonstrate a continuity of leadership after the sudden death of his father nine weeks ago, and the regime wants food in preparation for its April 15 celebrations of the 100th birthday of the first leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung.

:UNQUOTE.


I don’t understand what could be meant by “a continuity of leadership.” “Continuity” can’t be questioned as long as Jong controls the military. Maybe this is meant: “We will continue to jerk the US and the world community around by obtaining food aid based on a promise, which will be broken at our convenience.” Well, that would be a “continuity” of the leadership style of Jong’s father. Certainly, there can’t be any “continuity” in genuinely abandoning a nuclear weapons’ program that has served to increased North Korea’s stature among nations.

As for that last bit: “…and the regime wants food in preparation for its April 15 celebrations of the 100th birthday of the first leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung.” It’s far easier to celebrate on a full stomach, so exactly for that reason the US should have held back and encouraged South Korea to do the same.

Without food, there will be many hungry men in North Korea (who will get only hungrier) who might start thinking, “We’ve got to get rid of Jong before he gets rid of the rest of us.” Such men might think of rebelling. If they don’t rebel, then they will die as have hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens during past famines. That will suit Jong just fine, if the population dies off to such a low level that finally North Korea will be able to feed itself.


What if Jong lashes out militarily?

So what if he does? So what if he even throws a nuclear bomb or two at South Korea? That would be all the justification it would take for the US to retaliate, to which China could hardly object. For that reason, I believe China would be the first to smite North Korea in order to (hopefully) prevent the US from doing so. And I believe young Jong knows this of his northern neighbor.

I’ve heard stories for years about how North Korean artillery could level Seoul. These tales have induced a “waiting for the other shoe to drop” siege mentality. There’s a lot to be said for the other shoe actually dropping. After that, all of the major players will know what needs to be done.


Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“After a while, one is forced to ask, ‘What’s the worst that could happen?’ And then, one will be forced to conclude, ‘Only that? What was there ever to be afraid of?’”

Contract me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

No comments:

Post a Comment