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
WP said:For the Obama administration, North Korea has followed a familiar script. It has made trouble, exploding a nuclear device. It has made nice, inviting U.S. officials to visit. And it has made a mess of growing food, needing handouts from the rich countries it threatens.
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