N. Korea: U.S. Senate Approves NK Human Rights Bill

Washington, Sept. 28 (Yonhap) -- The U.S. Senate on Tuesday (local time) unanimously approved a revision to a bill aimed at improving human rights in North Korea.

The U.S. House of Representatives had adopted a bill in July, which would provide US$24 million a year for the next five years toward improving North Korea's human rights record and assisting defectors.

It appears to me that this article refers to Senator Brownback's bill S. 1903.

If so, then while the bill certainly is forthright about the lamentable situation in North Korea, it appears to me to be a big giveaway program that will only prop up the Kim government. Here is the key provision from section 104:

       (b) FUNDING TO NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS- The Director of the United States Agency for International Development may provide financial assistance, including grants, to the World Food Program and any United States nongovernmental organizations that are able to--

            (1) provide food aid and other humanitarian assistance to North Koreans; and

            (2) demonstrate--

                  (A) a successful record of providing food aid to North Koreans; or

                  (B) the intent and capacity to provide such aid.

      (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the purpose of carrying out this section.

From reading the bill, it appears to me that this money will be spent inside of North Korea; now, I have no ill will toward the North Korean people and I don't want to see them starve or even be mal-nourished, but I don't want to prop up their mad dictator either.

It's a big bill, and I haven't read everything in it. In most ways, it's a very good one. But even though most of the sentiments in this section are admirable, I am troubled by other parts, such as in section 402:

             (1) the United States and North Korea should engage in trade that will mutually benefit the people of both nations;

            (2) the mere lifting of United States sanctions against North Korea, without fundamental changes in the North Korean economy, will not lead to mutually beneficial economic relationships between the United States and North Korea;

            (3) the United States should provide economic assistance to North Korea that will benefit the people of North Korea, and should avoid merely establishing North Korea as a permanent recipient of government-to-government transfer payments;

            (4) the Government of North Korea should recognize that the path to economic renewal growth lies in international markets in goods, services, and capital, which offer opportunities for reducing costs, improving productivity, and promoting dynamism;

            (5) the participation in the North Korean economy of more than 450 small- and medium-sized businesses from South Korea represents an opportunity for North Korea to integrate its economy with the world market, expand trade, and attract foreign investment and other economic benefits; and

            (6) trade sanctions related to North Korea should not be lifted, and economic assistance should not be provided to North Korea, unless such lifting of sanctions or provision of economic assistance is also accompanied by the Government of North Korea taking monitored steps related to the standards of the Millennium Challenge Account proposed by the President of the United States on March 14, 2002, including the aggressive prosecution of any North Koreans engaged in international criminal activities such as drug trafficking and counterfeiting.

Paragraph (1) seems to me over-broad. The last thing I want our government is to be sending the message "let's trade" with the evil government of North Korea. While the following paragraphs qualify this, (1) should itself not simply say that we want to trade.

Paragraph (3) shouldn't say that we want to give the people aid and this aid should U.S. government-to-North Korea's people rather than simple government-to-government transfer. I actually don't want to give folks in any other country simply money -- we want to help in an exigent situation, not set up a daggone welfare system for them, and I wanted it stated clearly based on Congress's past propensity for taking noble sentiments and turning them into handouts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.