Jong of course
Posted on 06/22/2005 1:12:35 PM PDT by dead
The United States said on June 22 it would give North Korea 50,000 tonnes of food aid, saying its decision was based on humanitarian need and was not linked to efforts to end Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. 'The United States will be donating, in response to the World Food Program appeal, 50,000 metric tonnes of agricultural commodities for North Korea,' State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said, adding it was not designed to lure North Korea to six-party talks on ending its suspected nuclear arms programs.
It's become a knee jerk reaction that aid of this sort must come from our gov't rather than from private charity. 9-11 and the Tsunami demonstrate it need not be the case, and it is not the best method for providing such aid.
This stands out as a policy reversal. Some core conservative values have been subverted. Even some of the Immigration Policy threads that are, well, on the edge make perfect sense now. Few things inspire me to comment. This has me ready to spew some vitriol that I know I would regret.
So instead of trading food for empty promises, we've decided to trade food for nothing at all. That's an interesting strategy.
Maybe we're only giving them the food Americans won't eat. Like cauliflower or beets.
Just out of idle curiosity, are you speaking of Jong or Bush?
When will the White House state dinner honoring the Chia Pet Head NK Dear Leader occur? Soon I imagine.
Sadly, yes.
I vote for dirt. Dirt is the simplest of all the agricultural commodities. And maybe 1 million gallons of water to go with it, another valuable agricultural commodity.
Once again we demonstrate the crass and gross stupidity of the American government.
Any food sent there will go to feed the military machine and party elites.
We are dumb and getting dumber.
Wednesday June 22, 2005 8:46 PM
AP Photo MDCG102
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States will provide more than 50,000 tons of food to North Korea in what the Bush administration says is a humanitarian decision unrelated to efforts to get Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program.
The kind of food provided is to be determined in consultation with the World Food Program, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli. He also said seeds and small tools might be provided, as well.
U.S. efforts to meet the needs of the North Korean people and to halt the weapons program are not linked, Ereli said Wednesday in announcing the program. ``Our decisions are made on humanitarian considerations solely,'' he said.
The administration made a similar decision to provide 50,000 metric tons (about 55,000 tons) of food assistance last July. In 2003, the administration donated 100,000 metric tons. All of these donations were made as the United States and North Korea jostled over the weapons issue, as they still do.
North Korea indicated earlier this month that it was ready to resume talks with the United States and four other countries - Russia, China, Japan and South Korea - but no date has been set.
At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said: ``We've been a big supplier of food to the North Korean people and the president has said that he does not believe that food should be used as a diplomatic weapon.''
``We have always had concerns, though, that that food is getting to the people who need it: the people who are starving, the people who are hungry,'' McClellan added. ``We want to make sure there are assurances that that food is going to those who need it, not to the government and not to the military in North Korea.''
In a statement issued later, the State Department said the World Food Program ``has informed us that it is attempting to implement a new food monitoring system to reduce the risk of diversion.''
Two private U.S. experts on North Korea said this week that leader Kim Jong Il had sent a message to President Bush in November 2002 saying the United States and North Korea ``should be able to resolve the nuclear issue in compliance with the demands of the new century.''
``If the United States makes a bold decision, we will respond accordingly,'' Kim said in a written personal message to Bush that he sent through Donald Gregg and Don Oberdorfer. Gregg is a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and key aide to Bush's father. Oberdorfer is a Korea expert at the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington.
Gregg and Oberdorfer wrote about their trip to Pyongyang in an opinion piece in Wednesday's Washington Post.
The message appeared to reflect a persistent North Korean demand for direct talks with the United States, in preference to the six-party format.
The administration has offered assurances U.S. and North Korean diplomats could confer against the six-nation backdrop. And yet, with these and other signs of a breakthrough in the making, no date or place for negotiations has been announced.
Two months ago, faced with a published report that the administration had decided to halt food aid to North Korea, the State Department said the North's needs were being weighed against hunger in other countries.
``We don't calibrate or decide on food assistance based on political factors,'' said Richard Boucher, the department's spokesman at the time.
A metric ton, which weighs 2,205 pounds, is a commonly used measure outside the United States.
South Korea, meanwhile, has begun providing 200,000 tons of fertilizer to North Korea in a move designed to help overcome food shortages.
The International Crisis Group, a private organization, said in a recent report that North Korea was undergoing the most profound economic change in its 57-year history as a state.
Semiprivate markets, shops and small businesses are spreading through the country, the report said. ``The international community has an opportunity to increase the chances that North Korea will make a successful transition from a Stalinist command economy to one that is more market-driven,'' it said.
---
Jong of course
Yep, the "Two-Party Cartel" who just can't find enough ways to spend OUR money. Who knows, maybe Kin Jong can get on the Supreme Court. Think I'm crazy? Did you think that Bubba & the Bushes would be jollying it up together? Did you think that GW would have spent more money on domestic spending than any other pres since LBJ? Who knows, maybe McLame running as an independent & winning would break up this cartel & make CONgress accountable.
Yep, it'll go straight to their 1 million+ man army.
"Compassionate conservatism" is virtually indistinguishable from liberalism.
I'd rather give this to Mali. They need it. NK is a self imposed starvation and I don't really believe they are starving anyway. Plus it is stupid to give KJ-I anything.
Why? How could we be so stupid?
WE?
Government isn't the answer, government is the problem.
Well, that should keep the army fed for a few months....
 |
Why the hell not? |
South Korea, meanwhile, has begun providing 200,000 tons of fertilizer to North Korea in a move designed to help overcome food shortages.
Here, feed this to your army Kimmy.
Americans are such chumps.
The second announcement is to tell you that we will be putting out a statement after the briefing today announcing that the United States will be donating, in response to the World Food Program appeal, 50,000 metric tons of agricultural commodities for North Korea. And that will -- that is in response to the 2005 appeal. That is in addition to, as you know, 50,000 metric tons that we gave last year and 100,000 metric tons that we gave the year before.
QUESTION: What made you arrive at that decision?
MR. ERELI: Basically, a review of the need in North Korea, competing needs elsewhere and the humanitarian organizations' ability to have access to all vulnerable groups and monitor the assistance. Those are the three criteria. That's what we looked at in making the decision. It's obviously very important, the issue of access and monitoring. There has been some movement on that issue. I think as you'll see in the statement, there are still concerns. We continue to call for the maximum access, maximum freedom to monitor, so that we can be sure that the vulnerable populations are getting the assistance they need. But based on our assessment of the situation, we decided to go forward with the donation.
QUESTION: Does it have anything to do with U.S. efforts to get North Korea to six-party talks?
MR. ERELI: It's not linked to six-party talks. As you know, our decisions are made on humanitarian considerations solely.
QUESTION: So it is in no way, shape or form should be regarded as a political act or gesture?
MR. ERELI: It is a humanitarian act based on need and not based on political considerations and not linked to the six-party talks.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) to make sure that the people who need it get the food, rather than -- could you finish the thought? Who might be skimming off food? In other words, where is your concern? I know where you want it to go, but you're concerned that who gets it?
MR. ERELI: Our concern is that children who are malnourished who need the food get the food and we want to make sure that others who are not in similar -- others who are not in those conditions don't benefit from it when people who do need it aren't getting it.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to --
MR. ERELI: But I --
QUESTION: I don't want to push you where you don't want to go, but I'm just trying to find out if there is a suspicion that the Government of North Korea harvests this thing.
MR. ERELI: I would put it this way. Food is a scarce commodity. It has a -- and when it's a scare commodity it has a value, and there are those who seek to exploit that value for purposes -- for purposes for which the aid is not intended. And that's why monitoring is so important.
QUESTION: All right. We thank you. Talk among yourselves. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: See you, Barry.
QUESTION: In past years, there have been --
QUESTION: He can't top this one. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: In past years, there have been multiple tranches of aid. Would you say that there was a possibility that there will be more later?
MR. ERELI: I wouldn't want to speculate, frankly. Our actions are taken in response to World Food Program appeals. As I mentioned, last year we provided a similar amount in response to the World Food Program's appeal. We will endeavor to be -- we will respond to the circumstances as they exist. Right now, this is the appeal that's out there and we are acting accordingly.
QUESTION: What can you say about the account of Gregg and Oberdorfer today that they were passed a message asking for direct talks with President Bush?
MR. ERELI: When? In 2002?
QUESTION: Yes, on the 2002 --
MR. ERELI: Don't have anything for you. Don't have anything for you on it. Frankly, I didn't look into it because our focus, frankly, is on getting six-party talks restarted and engaging substantively on it. And what was purported to have happened in that piece doesn't relate meaningfully to the situation we're dealing with now. The situation we're dealing with now is that there is a process underway, there is a proposal on the table, there is a way for North Korea to address its increasing international isolation and achieve an improvement in its relations with its neighbors and the rest of the international community; and that's to address the concerns of its nuclear program through the six-party process.
So, frankly, that's where we're -- that's what we're working on, that's what's behind our diplomacy and that's why suggestions of past actions aren't really relevant to the concerns of the present.
QUESTION: But you said, "purported." Are you casting doubt that this really happened?
MR. ERELI: I'm saying I can't -- I don't have confirmation of it for you.
QUESTION: Why would you not have checked into it?
MR. ERELI: For the reasons I just said.
QUESTION: You don't think it's relevant?
MR. ERELI: For -- yeah, exactly.
QUESTION: One more on the food aid?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: What's the U.S. assessment of the food situation in North Korea? World food price -- World Food Program says that there's such a food crisis that they could be headed toward the kind of crisis that they had in the 1990s. And they said a lot of it has to do with the kind of economic reforms that the North is instituting, which is resulting in less food, actually, for the people.
MR. ERELI: I'll put it this way -- the World Food Program has detailed the need. We have assessed that report -- their findings. We agree with the importance and the necessity of providing assistance and that's what -- that is one of the important criteria for making our decision. If you ask me for details of the food crisis in North Korea, I just can't give you more than that.
One more thing to add in response to Barry's question, who's no longer here, but for the record I think it's important to point out, and it's in the statement. The question was asked: What areas do you want the food to be focused on? What are the specific needs you're targeting and that you want to make sure are not diverted from?" Our -- the focus of our assistance is on health interventions for children and small-scale food security projects in North Korea. And that's where we're going to be working with NGOs and UN agencies to make sure the food gets to.
QUESTION: Even though you're saying this isn't linked to six-party talks on the U.S. -- in the U.S. motivation, do you nonetheless hope that the North will see this as yet one more sign that the U.S. is not pursuing an aggressive policy against the government and that it may, perhaps, soften them toward the idea of coming back to talks, since they have consistently said they worry that you're aggressive?
MR. ERELI: Yeah, our decision is not motivated by what the North Koreans may or may not think. Our decision is made on the basis of what the North Korean people need.
QUESTION: I noted that in my question to you. While you're not motivated by that, do you nonetheless hope that will be a result?
MR. ERELI: What we hope is that the North Koreans will come back to six-party talks because it's in their interest to come back to six-party talks.
QUESTION: Speaking of six-party talks --
MR. ERELI: Yes?
QUESTION: Anything from the New York channel?
MR. ERELI: No.
QUESTION: Any -- have you heard from the Chinese or anybody else that the North Koreans --
MR. ERELI: Nothing new to report. There are obviously, as there are every day, statements by various -- from various places that, you know, there's an eagerness to come back to talks, there's a willingness to come back to talks, there's a possibility of coming back to talks. That's really all in the way of static and speculation. Until we have a concrete date, we don't have one.
Yes. Oh, are we done with North Korea? Because I've got another announcement, believe it or not.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
I guess I have had it all wrong. Durbin had to be right. See, now we are gonna be the bad guys because the poor, innocent NK's are getting spoiled food (NK army leftovers), and by golly we will be feeding the people that torture their populace in gulags! We MUST send them air conditioners (they just cannot be set too cold). Oh yeah, and the capacitors need to be rated to work at 20,000 feet. Not for a detonator or anything.
This is just bizarre.
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.