Replies

"We have consistently said we would pursue humanitarian aid for North Korea in consideration of the poor conditions children and pregnant women are in there, apart from political issues," said Cho in opening remarks at the meeting...

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't think it's EVER a good idea to let children starve or go without medical care, no matter how much you hate their government. I suspect that, even though the country is divided, Koreans in the South still regard those poor souls in the North as their fellow Koreans, especially long separated families and relatives.

One way to look at it is our own Civil War. Supposed that war would have ended up a protracted stalemate as exists in Korea. And, like Korea, suppose one side fell into economic ruin and children and pregnant women were suffering. Do you think we would not have sympathy for those of our fellow countrymen, at least for their children, to provide what basic nutrition and medicine we could, even though politically we were in a state of enmity? I guarantee you we would.

Reagan said “a hungry child knows no politics”, and gave food aid to Ethiopia even though he didn’t trust their government.
Both the U.S. and South Korea have given humantarian aid before. It will have no effect on the U.S.-South Korean relationship. We’re still on the same side.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't think it's EVER a good idea to let children starve or go without medical care, no matter how much you hate their government.

Stand by ... the reason children in NK are starving and go without medical care is NOT because we deny them humanitarian aid, but because Fat Boy Kim is content to see them suffer for his political ends; however well-intentioned, humanitarian aid to NK doesn't go direct to the people of NK, their government decides how it is spent so ultimately it only props up that government and perpetuates the peoples suffering.