Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
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?
The US signs treaties all the time and then breaks them when it no longer suits their interest so we can't expect other nations not to do the same. As for Iran, what one signs in 68' may not hold now for the present leadership and circumstances. They have not signed anything saying they cannot have it they only gave permission for strict IAEA inspections.
China and Russia are not living in fear of N. Korea. The Chinese are one of their closest allies and if N.Korea is on its way to advanced weaponry its because the Chinese have either helped or silently approve. They are always 'in talks' with N. Korea at the behest of the US but that doesn't mean anything, at least not anymore than the US negotiating a peace deal with Palestinians and Israel is if in earnest when we all know the US is pro Israeli in its interests. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration threatened N. Korea first with pre-emptive strikes. It stands to reason that they would feel forced to take preventative measures.
Wether we give food aid or not N. Korea is not going to disarm. There are occasions when the US doesn't want to confuse humanitarian aid with arms talks. Look the US has halted food aid from N. Korea during the Bush years and it didn't make much of a difference.
"If food aid from the U.S. stops, at least 300,000 to 400,000 North Koreans will die of hunger. This winter is critical to them, said Chang Seong Chong, a North Korean analyst at the Sejong Research Institute in Seoul.
From the North Korean point of view, they often say, ’We’d rather die standing up straight, than live kneeling down,’ Chang said. If food aid is used as a weapon or stick to tame them, no matter whether hundreds of thousands or millions die of hunger, they will react with that attitude."
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/008.html
Again you don't satisfy other nations by tying democratic ideas with trade or aid. The Chinese have leverage in developing countries precisely because they don't try and change the nature of the regimes they do business with, its simply a matter of quid pro quo. What we aim to do is force Kim Jong ll to open up his society and give up some control, recognize democratic and human rights ideals but they are not going to do that no matter how many people starve. I think that the sanctions are a mistake as they are in Myanmar. They should sweeten the tooth with pure capitalism as they have done with Cambodia. They make some changes to suit the west because they don't want all that money to stop flowing into the country, the government is basically run by a dictator but one who likes to have elections anyway, there is no opposition and no justice but there is peace and the people eat more than they did a decade ago and there is a rising middle class and the rich are getting richer and sending their kids to good schools in the US and Singapore. Those in government and business get rich and more powerful and in exchange they agree to a genocide tribunal, they sign treaties with the West and sit at the table and become more and more pliable over time but the moment the West harps too much about this right or that right or threatens to stop aid if they don't sign the anti corruption bill the Khmers simply say 'Well we always have the Chinese and they give us more' and the West loses it leverage.